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-eskow/gop-fundraising-insider_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&ned=us&q=Alishtari&ie=UTF-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?

[White_Male_Canada]

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

And you`re attempting to give this story the appearance of something sinister, which it is not. Otherwise Congress would have open hearings.



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.

Mythical !? Calm down, stop a minute, catch your breath and then do a meticulous web search.

"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?

I wasn`t quoting Fluffington as a source of reliable facts. Get off the crack-pipe.

"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."

Fluffington implied a lazy media or cover up, you contradicted Fluffington thereby proving my point about Fluffington being nothing more than op-eds, one person`s feelings about a particular subject. Therefore,UNRELIABLE. By doing so you also undermined this entire thread of CM`s as being accurate.

[thombergeron]

And you`re attempting to give this story the appearance of something sinister, which it is not. Otherwise Congress would have open hearings.

Actually, what I said specifically was that: "It's pretty simple. It's just a political embarrassment for the GOP. Nobody said anything about conspiracies except you." You're the only one using words like "sinister" and "conspiracy."

After years of the right-wing shrieking about the Democratic Party being favored by al Qaeda, an NRCC donor winds up being the one indicted for providing material support to terror groups. That's embarrassing for the Republican Party. Period.

And, as an entirely unrelated aside, the degree to which something is "sinister" isn't generally defined by whether or not "Congress" holds "open hearings."


Mythical !? Calm down, stop a minute, catch your breath and then do a meticulous web search.

Well, in fact, I have. And you might be interested to learn that there are some research tools beyond a "meticulous web search." LexisNexus is a good one. Also came up empty on this.

I follow terrorism and third-world development issues fairly closely. This canard gets hauled out every once in awhile by some mouthbreather or another, and yet no one ever seems to have any actual documentary evidence that it really happened. It's just a silly rumor that somebody made up a few years ago, and it keeps bouncing around the echochamber because people like you have no standards of evidence.

You always seem so sure of yourself, Michael. And yet you can't come up with a single authoritative source here? Does that make you lazy, or just gullible?


Fluffington implied a lazy media or cover up, you contradicted Fluffington thereby proving my point about Fluffington being nothing more than op-eds, one person`s feelings about a particular subject. Therefore,UNRELIABLE. By doing so you also undermined this entire thread of CM`s as being accurate.

I agree with you entirely. I have never once quoted nor linked to the Huffingtion Post. It is, indeed, an online op-ed page. I disagree with any writer, including you, who claims that the Alishtari case is some sort of vast right-wing conspiracy.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, and for you, this story has actually seen coverage far beyond the Huffington Post. Several hundred media outlets have sourced this story to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the New York office of the FBI. Are the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI unreliable, too?

[guyone]

Blah, blah, blah...

[White_Male_Canada]

Actually, what I said specifically was that: "It's pretty simple. It's just a political embarrassment for the GOP. Nobody said anything about conspiracies except you." You're the only one using words like "sinister" and "conspiracy."

After years of the right-wing shrieking about the Democratic Party being favored by al Qaeda, an NRCC donor winds up being the one indicted for providing material support to terror groups. That's embarrassing for the Republican Party. Period.

And, as an entirely unrelated aside, the degree to which something is "sinister" isn't generally defined by whether or not "Congress" holds "open hearings."

Of course, it`s the "seriousness of the charge." :lol:




Well, in fact, I have. And you might be interested to learn that there are some research tools beyond a "meticulous web search." LexisNexus is a good one. Also came up empty on this.

I`m tired of you, you`ve preven yourself as disingenuous. Go do your homework vis-à-vis contract information bulletins:

http://www.usaid.gov

[chefmike]

What the author said:

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

Did it ever move to the headlines? No.

[thombergeron]

I`m tired of you, you`ve preven yourself as disingenuous. Go do your homework vis-à-vis contract information bulletins:

http://www.usaid.gov

I'm not surprised. It must be exhausting getting your ass handed to you over and over again.

[White_Male_Canada]

I`m tired of you, you`ve preven yourself as disingenuous. Go do your homework vis-à-vis contract information bulletins:

http://www.usaid.gov

I'm not surprised. It must be exhausting getting your ass handed to you over and over again.

You`re such an incompetent fool it is beyond comprehension. In black and white junior:

The lists of current CIBs(contract information bulletins) and recently retired CIBs are attached:

99-24 DEC 1999 Islamic African Relief Agency

[thombergeron]

You`re such an incompetent fool it is beyond comprehension. In black and white junior:

The lists of current CIBs(contract information bulletins) and recently retired CIBs are attached:

99-24 DEC 1999 Islamic African Relief Agency

You do know that CIB 99-24 is a directive instructing USAID personnel not to cooperate with the Islamic African Relief Agency, right? Looking for $4.2 million in contracts awarded by Bubba Clinton. Anyone? Anyone?

[White_Male_Canada]

You`re such an incompetent fool it is beyond comprehension. In black and white junior:

The lists of current CIBs(contract information bulletins) and recently retired CIBs are attached:

99-24 DEC 1999 Islamic African Relief Agency

You do know that CIB 99-24 is a directive instructing USAID personnel not to cooperate with the Islamic African Relief Agency, right? Looking for $4.2 million in contracts awarded by Bubba Clinton. Anyone? Anyone?

thombergeron= once a dumb-fuck,always a dumb-fuck. 8)




Page 1
U.S. AGENCY FORINTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENT1300 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20523December 29, 1999MEMORANDUM FOR CONTRACTING OFFICERS AND NEGOTIATORSTO:Distribution List FACFROM:M/OP, Rodney W. Johnson, DirectorSUBJECT:Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA)CONTRACT INFORMATION BULLETIN 99-24 On December 16, 1999, the Administrator signed a determination, based in part oninformation provided by the Department of State, that continuation of assistance to IARAunder USAID agreements would not be in the national interest of the United States.As a result of this national interest determination, two cooperative agreements with IARA,with headquarters in Columbia, Missouri, have been terminated - one awarded by M/OP inWashington and one awarded by the Mission in Mali. As of this date, we are only aware ofthese two agreements. If your Mission or office has any agreements with IARA or ifapproval of any subagreement with IARA has been granted, please advise me immediately. No new awards, funded modifications, or delivery orders shall be executed with the IslamicAfrican Relief Agency without first consulting M/OP/E to obtain the latest informationregarding this matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[thombergeron]

Michael, for god's sake, would you read this stuff thoroughly before you cut-and-paste it here?

You claimed that Clinton's State department issued two USAID grants to the IARA for a total of $4.2 million. As proof of that, you've posted a 1999 directive canceling two "cooperative agreements" with IARA, one issued by the Office of Procurement, and the other by the U.S. Embassy in Mali.

What are you not getting here, son? We're looking for evidence that Clinton's State Department approved $4.2 million in grants to the IARA. Setting aside for a moment the issue of the imaginary $4.2 million (and no, USAID "cooperative agreements" are not always financial grants), assuming that because the Clinton State Department canceled these arrangements, it must have also approved them, is what's known as ex post facto justification, not documentary proof.

[chefmike]

Michael, for god's sake, would you read this stuff thoroughly before you cut-and-paste it here?

You claimed that Clinton's State department issued two USAID grants to the IARA for a total of $4.2 million. As proof of that, you've posted a 1999 directive canceling two "cooperative agreements" with IARA, one issued by the Office of Procurement, and the other by the U.S. Embassy in Mali.

What are you not getting here, son? We're looking for evidence that Clinton's State Department approved $4.2 million in grants to the IARA. Setting aside for a moment the issue of the imaginary $4.2 million (and no, USAID "cooperative agreements" are not always financial grants), assuming that because the Clinton State Department canceled these arrangements, it must have also approved them, is what's known as ex post facto justification, not documentary proof.


Oops...

WMC wrong.

Again...

Now there's a shocker.

[White_Male_Canada]

Clinton's State Department approved $4.2 million in grants to the IARA. Setting aside for a moment the issue of the imaginary $4.2 million (and no, USAID "cooperative agreements" are not always financial grants), assuming that because the Clinton State Department canceled these arrangements, it must have also approved them,

You cannot be serious. Desperation mode has set in over a non-issue here. I stated people make errors, including the Clinton Administration.And yes it was the Clinton administration`s USAID no matter what your opinion.

Your desperation comes in your attempt to imply that a grant and cooperative agreement are apples and oranges. A Grant Agreement is used to 1. Transfer a thing of value 2.To carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation; authorized by law and 4.Subtantial involvement is not expected. A Cooperative Agreement is identical except for number 4. Substantial invovlement IS expected, meaning oversight.

Whether outright Grant of Cooperative Agreement the end result is the same. Assistance is given, one without oversight and one with.

Keep trying sport, you leftists amuse me to no end. 8)

[thombergeron]

And yes it was the Clinton administration`s USAID no matter what your opinion.

My opinion has nothing to do with it. You keep making this allegation without offering even a shred of evidence that it's true. You just make this unsupported assertion and say, "So there." Then, when I call you on it, you post one thing and claim that it's another. You're dishonest, Michael, and that bugs me.

As I've said many times in the past, I don't have a dog in this fight. I have never claimed that Bill Clinton was some paragon of virtue or inspired foreign policy. Quite the contrary, in fact.

You responded to the Alishtari case by saying:

A) He duped the NRCC with a fake ID.

B) This is a non-story in which no one is interested.

C) The Democrats take money from terrorists all the time.

The quiet collapse of Point A went unremarked by you. The clear falsity of Point B was also dismissed with some irrelevant snark about the Huffington Post. And when all your examples of Point C proved likewise to be fantasy, you hung your hat on some old mouthbreather conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence. Let it go, Michael. Take a breath, relax, and go back to pasting penises on photographs of Hillary Clinton.



Your desperation comes in your attempt to imply that a grant and cooperative agreement are apples and oranges. A Grant Agreement is used to 1. Transfer a thing of value 2.To carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation; authorized by law and 4.Subtantial involvement is not expected. A Cooperative Agreement is identical except for number 4. Substantial invovlement IS expected, meaning oversight.

Whether outright Grant of Cooperative Agreement the end result is the same. Assistance is given, one without oversight and one with.

Whatever, silly. Grant, cooperative agreement, clusterfuck, call it whatever makes you happy. But CIB 99-24 makes no mention of $4.2 million, and says nothing about when those agreements were approved. USAID contracts can last for decades. How do we know Reagan's State Department didn't approve them? That would make sense. Sell weapons and explosives to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, then kick a few million down to a Islamist charity in North Africa. Seems like a consistent foreign policy to me.

[White_Male_Canada]

Whatever, silly. Grant, cooperative agreement, clusterfuck

Typical dumb-blonde retort, “ what-eva “ Those pesky US Codes (Title316305) , always fucking up your nonsense.


You responded: The Democrats take money from terrorists all the time

False. I said , “…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… 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...
Masri worked for Arafat. Arafat is a proven terrorist:

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


You responded: This is a non-story in which no one is interested/ He duped the NRCC with a fake ID.

Non-story yes, fake ID yes. Duped the NRCC with a fake ID, no.

As far as I am aware, Alishtari`s last donation to the NRCC came in 2004 in the amount of one thousand dollars. The unsealed indictment indicates that wire fraud charges stem from 1998 and that material/financing terrorism charges stem from June 2006.
Apparently critics expect omniscience from the NRCC and somehow expected them to foretell the future and have the FBI do background checks on all donors.

[thombergeron]

Typical dumb-blonde retort, “ what-eva “ Those pesky US Codes (Title316305) , always fucking up your nonsense.

God, Michael, you're tripping over your own bullshit again. CIB 99-24 cites two "cooperative agreements" with IARA. You, not Rod Johnson at USAID, claimed that it was two grants worth $4.2 million.

U.S. Code Title 31 Sec. 6305 calls a "cooperative agreement" a "thing of value." A "thing of value" is not always two grants totalling $4.2 million. In fact, shockingly, a "thing of value" is not even always U.S. tax dollars.

So now, weeks later, we are all still waiting for something, anything, showing that "Clinton's State Department funneled $4.2 million in grants to the Islamic African Relief Agency."

In fact, fuck it, let's adopt Michael's standards of documentary evidence. Clearly, CIB 99-24 is canceling two grants totalling $38 million that Reagan's State Department funneled to Islamic African Relief Agency. Prove to me it's not.


Or Hillary`s fund raisers, where the American Muslim Alliance attended en masse.

Despite the fact that Muslims make you wet your pants, the American Muslim Alliance is not a terrorist organization.


Donor Abdurahman Alamoudi, once vowed to eliminate Israel.

Abdurahman Alamoudi is obviously not donating funds to Hillary Clinton, since he's been in jail for the last three years.


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...
Masri worked for Arafat. Arafat is a proven terrorist:

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

For the second time, when was it that Hani Masri worked for Arafat? No one is disputing Fatah's involvement with Black September. It's pretty extensively documented, even beyond those super-cool redacted State Department documents. But Hani Masri, as an American citizen, is not even a member of Fatah.


Non-story yes, fake ID yes. Duped the NRCC with a fake ID, no.

Hmmm, a non-story that's been in the news on a daily basis for a month now. And what fake ID is that? Is that the one that you keep in your ass? Has anyone on this planet noticed it, apart form you?


As far as I am aware, Alishtari`s last donation to the NRCC came in 2004 in the amount of one thousand dollars. The unsealed indictment indicates that wire fraud charges stem from 1998 and that material/financing terrorism charges stem from June 2006.
Apparently critics expect omniscience from the NRCC and somehow expected them to foretell the future and have the FBI do background checks on all donors.

Well, again, nobody has said that this is anything besides embarrassing for the Republican Party. Except you, who said it looked somehow "sinister." It's too bad for the NRCC. Guys who support international terrorism also like to donate money to the GOP. What are you gonna do?

Unless... you know what the NRCC could do? They could give up that $15K that Alishtari gave them.

But I guess they don't want to do that. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17378612/)


Alishtari also donated more than $15,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm for Republican House members.

Jessica Boulanger, a spokeswoman for the NRCC, said the committee is awaiting the outcome of Alishtari's case. If found guilty, she said, the money would be donated to charity.