|
Last week, John DiIulio abruptly announced that he would be leaving the White House team working on U.S. President George W. Bush's signature policy initiative, the inclusion of faith-based institutions in federally funded social service work. The Administration has emphasized, and the press has swallowed the claim, that DiIulio is leaving for personal reasons and never intended to serve more than six months in his position, but I have some questions.
The Faith-Based Initiative program was a hard sell all around. Liberals were concerned about church-state separation; conservatives were concerned about federal regulation of religious social service work; libertarians were concerned about new constituencies for expansion of government; minority groups were concerned about being subordinated to larger more influential groups; evangelical Christians were concerned that Muslims might get some of the money, etc. Yet, most agreed that DiIulio was a man of honor who demonstrated an ability to listen to people's concerns. Thus, his resignation was a stunner. Now, consider the following fascinating timeline:
June 28, 2001: Abdullah al-Arian instructed by secret service agents to leave a meeting of Muslim leaders with DiIulio. Although an apology followed, no explanation was ever given for young al-Arian's dismissal.
July 25, 2001: Abdullah al-Arian returns along with other Muslim leaders to meet with DiIulio in the Old Executive Office Building. No ejection of anyone takes place. DiIulio's gracious response to concerns that no Muslim has been appointed to a significant position in his office is summarized in my subsequent IslamOnline column (Ahmad, 2001) in these words: "DiIulio explained that the Office has only been in existence six months and promised that over the next six months the absence of a Muslim on staff would be addressed, reciting the motto 'Methodist, Muslim, Mormon and people of no faith at all.'… DiIulio assured us that the appointment would be significant."
August 13, 2001: The Wall Street Journal publishes an op-ed piece by Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson demanding that the White House exclude "the leaders of terror front groups from the White House" and naming Abdullah's father Sami as an example of same (Pipes and Emerson, 2001).
August 18, 2001: DiIulio's resignation is announced.
Just one question: If DiIulio never intended to serve more than six months, then how could he make these statements? Who were the people behind the ejection of Abdullah al-Arian from the White House? Were the same people behind DiIulio's decision to resign? Were they influenced, inspired, or provoked by the Pipes-Emerson screed?
I do not know of any direct connection between these events, just as I do not know why the Wall Street Journal has not to this date published either Sami al-Arian's rebuttal of the insinuations against him or, for that matter, why they have not published my own response to that same op-ed piece. I don't know how Abdullah al-Arian's initial exclusion came about, nor do I know the how to reconcile DiIulio's remarks to us with what happened a few days later. I would appreciate it if someone could answer these questions.
Sources:
Ahmad, Imad-ad-Dean. "A Frank Talk with John DiIulio." IslamOnline (08/01/01)
Swarns, Rachel. "Officials Attempt to Save Racism Talks." New York Times (09/04/01)
|
