GOP Fundraising 'Insider' Accused Of Terrorism

[chefmike]

GOP Fundraising 'Insider' Accused Of Terrorism. Media Yawns.

Yet another example of the free ride that the busheviks get regularly in the US media...letting the right-wing off easy has been routine ever since that pig (roast-in-hell, ronnie) reagan was in office..


I've waited a couple of days for this story to move from the back pages to the headlines. Nothing. Apparently the story that a Republican Party fundraiser has now been accused of financing terrorism is no big deal. The media's more interested in Obama's smoking, the Clintons' sex life, and the state of decay on the face of Anna Nicole's corpse (which Larry King covered the other night, thanks to a talkative county coroner.)


In fairness to Larry, he's not supposed to cover hard news. And to that joker who just said it's a redundancy to say "Republican Party fundraiser accused of financing terrorism" - very funny, wise guy. Still, to read this story and realize that it's been essentially overlooked is to experience the impending explosion of one's own head.

Can you imagine how they'd cover it if a Democratic Party fundraiser had been accused of financing terror training camps, transferring funds to pay for "night vision goggles and other equipment" needed to train terrorists manqué? It would be an even bigger story than the plane Nancy Pelosi (didn't) request - by, oh, a factor of a million or so. Doncha think?

Oh, and the camp in question is in Afghanistan. You remember. The country that was connected to 9/11. The one that is part of the "war on terror." Where the war is going ... badly ...

Then there's the odd ratio between the amount of money this financier allegedly transferred to the terrorist camp - $152,000 - and the amount he gave to the National Republican Congressional Committee, which was $15,250. DailyKos notes its resemblance to a "tithe," but when nice round figures like 10% come up (plus a $50 service fee?) its more often in the context of a negotiated fee-splitting arrangement.

Not that it could be in this case. I'm just sayin', is all ...

The Boston Herald reports that the accused's resume describes him as a National Republican Senatorial Committee "Inner Circle Member for Life" and a member of the NRCC's "White House Business Advisory Committee." UPI reports that the NRCC is keeping the money and will only donate it to charity if he's convicted. (They're not banking on their leadership to get this prosecution right, are they?)

And Jamie at Intoxination observes that the GOP's hostility to habeus corpus and Constitutional rights for accused terrorists seems to have evaporated in this case. Jamie quotes the NRCC's touchy-feely statement about the accused and his money:

"We are extremely concerned and disturbed by these charges but we need to be careful not to rush to judgment as the judicial process moves forward. If the individual in question is actually found guilty of a crime, it is our intent to donate the money to charity."

Kinda sounds like the ACLU, doesn't it? (Question: If he loses, will they give up the interest they've earned in the meantime? Gotta watch these guys.)

The irony is that they're right, of course. Many, if not most, of the people accused in this Administration's ineptly managed anti-terrorism program have later been found innocent of the charges against them. But you can't have it both ways: Either the GOP's been taking money from a terrorist/terror banker, or it's screwed up yet another anti-terrorism prosecution.

It reminds me of another story, one of the few scoops that I've had in my short career. (I don't usually have the time for investigative reporting, as much as I admire the craft. I have a day job.) That was back when the Republicans wanted to tar the Dems and Kofi Annan with the oil-for-food scandal, and I found that the only known politician to have financial ties to the company that bribed Saddam and has family was ... a Republican Senator.

The media yawned about that story, too. Can you imagine if Howard Dean had been the recipient, not Don Nickles? (I was right, however, when I predicted the Republicans would suddenly "lose interest" in the issue.)

Here's a web of international terror financing that could lead all the way into the White House itself. isn't it worthy of some ink? I mean it's no "Dean scream", but ...



article and many links/footnotes (and no I'm not putting them into BBCode) found here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-esk...r_b_41847.html

[White_Male_Canada]

You`re a masochist sport.

Fluffington author RJ Eskow, writer, business person, and songwriter/musician.

It`s a non-story for the fact that the one Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari used the false identity, Michael Mixon , to make the donations. This was before his identity became known and before his indictment.

The statement issued by the NRSC says it all:

In light of the recent charges filed against a former donor, the National Republican Senatorial Committee will donate the sum total of the former donor’s contributions to a charitable organization. The money will go to an organization that benefits our military men and women and their families.

[thombergeron]

You're spinning faster than your brain can keep up, Michael. Clearly the NRCC doesn't think this is a non-story, considering that they gave up $15K that they're really going to need in 2008.

Further, we get it that you don't like the Huffington Post. However, considering that in this instance, the story has been covered by MSNBC, UPI, CBS, the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Washington Times, the New York Times, Forbes, Fox News, NewsMax, the New York Post, and about 150 other international news outlets, the fact that chefmike happened to pick a Huffington Post clip isn't very relevant. This one happened, much to the chagrin of the NRCC. It's in the record.

And the fact that Alishtari used an anglicized name for his business dealings doesn't actually distract from the fact that a wealthy and honored member of Republican Party was caught, in two different instances, providing material support to a terrorist organization.

[chefmike]

The statement issued by the NRSC says it all...

ROTFLMFAO!

Same as it ever was...

You remain as delusional as ever, slick...

WMChickenhawk provides us with a quote from the NRSC...now there's a shocker...

Newsflash, dupe...

American voters soundly rejected the neocon chickenhawks (those who haven't abandoned the chimp), and their lies and duplicitous agendas, this past November...

No one buys that shit you're sellin' but sheep like you who have a problem with facing reality...

I'd say suck it up and march on, but you chickenhawks don't have much military experience, do you?

[White_Male_Canada]

You're spinning faster than your brain can keep up, Michael. Clearly the NRCC doesn't think this is a non-story, considering that they gave up $15K that they're really going to need in 2008.

And the fact that Alishtari used an anglicized name for his business dealings doesn't actually distract from the fact that a wealthy and honored member of Republican Party was caught, in two different instances, providing material support to a terrorist organization.

Use of fake names and ID`s certainly does mitigate the level of shame. But what about your boys?

I suppose the fact that Clinton`s State Department funneled $4.2 million in grants to the Islamic African Relief Agency, an organization that has been linked to bin Laden and to attacks on U.S. interests-including the embassy bombings was all just a misunderstanding?

Or Hillary`s fund raisers, where the American Muslim Alliance attended en masse. Donor Abdurahman Alamoudi, once vowed to eliminate Israel

Or maybe that fundraising event closed to the press that was held at the home of Hani Masri, a former crony of Yasser Arafat. Mrs. Clinton's campaign staff tried to conceal the event, which raised $50,000.

I`ll get back to you on the voting numbers for muslims who voted democrat versus republican.

[thombergeron]

As I'm not a Democrat, didn't vote for Clinton either time, and would not vote for his wife, referring to them as "your guys" is still more of your predictably disingenuous bullcrap.

It also doesn't make much sense that you would be working so hard to distract attention from NRCC-terrorism link if this is a "non-story." But of course, making sense is that elusive skill you haven't quite nailed down, have you, Michael?

In any event, the most significant difference between Alistari and the desperate examples you've cited is that no Democratic donors have been indicted for providing material support to a terrorist organization.

Alleging that big bad Bill Clinton "funneled" $4.2 million to an organization that recently had its assets frozen for ties to a terrorist organization sure sounds really exciting, but there's not actually any evidence that it's true. Do you have a citation that's not from the mouthbreather echochamber? The Treasury Department owns the IARA's financial records now. If there were $4.2 million in U.S. tax dollars in there, don't you think there might have been some investigation of that? Further, do you think the President or any political appointee reviews federal grant applications? I just got through writing a massive grant application, and fortunately, it won't go near anyone who's not a career bureaucrat.

The American Muslim Alliance is, of course, not a terrorist organization, nor does it maintain ties to terrorist organizations. I don't think Abdul Al-Amoudi has donated anything to Senator Clinton's Presidential campaign, since he's been in jail for two years and won't get out for another 20. Hillary did return the $1,000 he gave her Senate campaign, notably, four years prior to his indictment. The federal government, on the other hand, continued to do business with Al-Amoudi's software company right up until he was convicted.

Hani Masri, of course, is not a terrorist, and resides openly in the United States, as well as serving on the International Board of the Shimon Peres Center for Peace.

I'm not actually interested in the number of Muslim U.S. citizens who vote Democratic, as the sanctity of the voting booth is a cornerstone of American democracy. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it were high, though, given the current administration's clear hostility to Muslims.

Again, though, I don't see how that's relevant to the Alishtari case. Despite your paranoid delusions, Muslim does not equal terrorist.

[White_Male_Canada]

Michael?

My name is not Mike you buffoon.

In any event, the most significant difference between Alistari and the desperate examples you've cited is that no Democratic donors have been indicted for providing material support to a terrorist organization.

To imply that a muslim using a forged identification making donations to the RNC makes the RNC a sponsor of terrorism is laughable. It`s funnier than algore stating he knew of no controling legal authority even though there were specific laws that forbade his actions.

Alleging that big bad Bill Clinton "funneled" $4.2 million to an organization that recently had its assets frozen for ties to a terrorist organization sure sounds really exciting, but there's not actually any evidence that it's true. Do you have a citation that's not from the mouthbreather echochamber? The Treasury Department owns the IARA's financial records now. If there were $4.2 million in U.S. tax dollars in there, don't you think there might have been some investigation of that? Further, do you think the President or any political appointee reviews federal grant applications? I just got through writing a massive grant application, and fortunately, it won't go near anyone who's not a career bureaucrat.

Do you ever tire of making a complete ass of yourself over and over?

In 1998, Clinton`s U.S. Agency for International Development awarded two contracts, worth a total of $4.2 million.
In December 1999, Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs, demanded the cancellation of the contracts because they
were "contrary to the national defense and foreign policy interests of the United States,"
And according to the department, the Treasury Department said the Sudan-based charity has 40 offices around the world and uses them as part of its efforts to support bin Laden, al-Qaida and other groups designated as terrorist, including the Palestinian group Hamas.
John Snow,Secretary of the Treasury( 2003-2006 )said, "the international offices of IARA were providing direct financial support to Usama bin Laden, al Qaida, Hamas and other terrorist groups."

The Islamic African Relief Agency network provided assistance to Taliban
fighters, and a charity leader in Afghanistan raised $5 million for the
Taliban during a fund-raising trip in Sudan and in the Middle East in 2000.

Hani Masri, of course, is not a terrorist, and resides openly in the United States, as well as serving on the International Board of the Shimon Peres Center for Peace.

Masri worked for Arafat. Arafat is a proven terrorist:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/67584.pdf

I'm not actually interested in the number of Muslim U.S. citizens who vote Democratic, as the sanctity of the voting booth is a cornerstone of American democracy. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it were high, though, given the current administration's clear hostility to Muslims.

Yeah sure sport, we`re all worried about those blue-eyed blonde haired Swedes that go around blowing themselves up and taking civilians with them.

[thombergeron]

You sure are working hard to spin off a "non-story," Michael.

What's your source on the "forged identification" angle? Because the 30 or 40 stories that I've read about this report that he used the anglicized name Mixon to simplify his business dealings, and actually made no attempt to hide his identity. In fact, he made his contributions to the NRCC under his given name. See the image below on NRCC Business Advisory Council letterhead.

I don't think anyone is alleging that the RNC is a "sponsor of terrorism." What is clear is that this episode is hugely embarrassing for the Republican Party. I understand that you're not embarrassed, but that's because you have no shame.

Also, no one is denying that the IARA sponsored terror groups. The Treasury Department did indeed shut them down. Congratulations. You read a newspaper.

What's just absurdly silly about your desperate attempt to distract attention from the Alishtari case is your allegation that Bill Clinton gave $4.2 million to a terrorist organization. I would love to see a shred of actual evidence of the existence of those two US AID contracts. And as a bonus, maybe you could show where President Clinton -- or really any political appointee in the Clinton Administration -- ordered those two contracts fulfilled. Or even approved them. Or was even aware of their alleged existence.

When was it that Hani Masri "worked for Arafat"? Do you have even the faintest clue who Hani Masri is? Before you try, "a terrorist" is not an adequate answer.

I love that "all Muslims are terrorists" line. It really ranks you in the "worldly" category. If you ever climb out of your mom's basement, maybe you'll actually meet a Muslim someday. Look carefully, though. Sometimes, Muslims are blond and blue-eyed.

[White_Male_Canada]

What's just absurdly silly about your desperate attempt to distract attention from the Alishtari case

Why doesn`t Congress open up a public investigation? Because there was no conspiracy by the RNC to recruit terrorists to donate cash to the party. Sheeesh you`re stupid.

is your allegation that Bill Clinton gave $4.2 million to a terrorist organization. I would love to see a shred of actual evidence of the existence of those two US AID contracts. And as a bonus, maybe you could show where President Clinton -- or really any political appointee in the Clinton Administration -- ordered those two contracts fulfilled. Or even approved them. Or was even aware of their alleged existence.

Clinton`s State Department did, that`s the bottom line no matter how fast you backpeddle. People fuck up and make errors, much like you and chefmike do,except on a much more regular basis,

Fluffington post:

I've waited a couple of days for this story to move from the back pages to the headlines. Nothing.

You:

the story has been covered by MSNBC, UPI, CBS, the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Washington Times, the New York Times, Forbes, Fox News, NewsMax, the New York Post, and about 150 other international news outlets

Decide which it is and get back to use here in reality.

[thombergeron]

Why doesn`t Congress open up a public investigation? Because there was no conspiracy by the RNC to recruit terrorists to donate cash to the party. Sheeesh you`re stupid.

Who said anything about a conspiracy, Michael? This story is about an American businessman who is politically allied with both the Republican Party and people running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. It's pretty simple. It's just a political embarrassment for the GOP. Nobody said anything about conspiracies except you.

You're acting quite defensive over this "non-story." Is it possible you're actually feeling embarrassed?

Clinton`s State Department did, that`s the bottom line no matter how fast you backpeddle. People fuck up and make errors, much like you and chefmike do,except on a much more regular basis.

So that's a No, you don't have any evidence that these mythical Clinton-era USAID contracts exist anywhere apart from a string of fevered FreeRepublic posts.

Decide which it is and get back to use here in reality.

So, now the Huffington Post is a quotable source for you? Do you know what hypocrisy is, Michael?

There's this really handy tool on the Internets call Google News:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...TF-8&scoring=d

Speaking of backpeddling, what happened to the forged ID angle? Where's your link to the story about how the evil and duplicitous Muslim masqueraded as a good Christian American and donated $15K to the NRCC solely to embarrass the GOP?