Why Obama should fire special envoy Rashad Hussain.

Rashad Hussain's character has been called into question after only 9 days on the job. This does not bode well for an administration that promised the American people "hope" and "change".

In January of 2009, Rashad Hussain was named deputy associate counsel to President Barack Obama. Before that he served as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice. Then President Obama appointed Hussain, an Indian-American Muslim, the United States special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Flashback to 2004. While a Yale law student, Hussain spoke alongside the daughter of Professor Sami al-Arian, who was employed by the University of South Florida in Tampa, at the Muslim Students Association’s annual conference, a group founded by the Muslim Brotherhood (see below*). Professor Sami al-Arian was convicted of being a key leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group and later admitted to being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was sentenced to the maximum 57 months in prison, with deportation to follow time served.

At the 2004 conference, Hussain stated, "The case that Laila (al-Arian's daughter) just reminded us of is truly a sad commentary on our legal system. It is a travesty of justice, not just from the perspective of the allegations that are made against Dr. al-Arian. Without passing any comment on those specific allegations or the statements [that] have been made against him, the process that has been used has been atrocious." Hussain went on to say, the treatment of al-Arian fit a "common pattern ... of politically-motivated prosecutions where you have huge Justice Department press conferences announcing that a certain person is a grave threat to American security." You can read the full Politico article here.

Hussain (left) initially said he didn't recall making those statements (and the White House supported him, saying the journalist was wrong). I believe they were first attributed to Professor Sami al-Arian's daughter - not Hussain. However, the statements Hussain said he couldn't recall were caught on audio tape. So NOW Hussain admits he DID make those statements.

Forget, for a moment, all Muslim references. Just forget them. Most Muslims aren't bent on jihad. What kills me is the "not recalling the statements" part. If Hussain honestly didn't recall them and then suddenly remembered them - that's plausible. But Hussain ALSO admitted contacting the magazine where the story first appeared to get the magazine to change its on-line version to erase the fact. "I made statements on that panel that I now recognize were ill-conceived or not well-formulated," Hussain said, referring to the 2004 conference. "When I saw the article that attributed comments to me without context, leaving a misimpression, I contacted the publication to raise concerns about it. Eventually, of their own accord, they modified the article." The publication being the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs.

So it didn't just dawn on Hussain that "oh, yeh...I guess I did say that shit." He lied about it. Not only couldn't he recall making the statements, but he couldn't recall contacting the publication about his statements. Terrible memory - and this guy went to Harvard and Yale Law School? Oh yeah - Hussain made that call THREE YEARS LATER. Why? Interesting how not long after contacting the publication, Hussain was hired to fill the trial attorney position (handling civil cases against the government) at the U.S. Department of Justice in 2008? Coincidence?

And yet The White House has expressed its full confidence in Hussain. Discussion over.

Hussain lied to protect his ass. Or he wouldn't have contacted the publication to confirm what he had said three years prior. But what's another liar in Washington, right. Fuck it. Who cares? The liberals don't care 'cause Hussain's Obama's guy. Republicans are the same way. If it were one of their own they'd say, "you're making a bigger issue out of this than needs to be."

*Back to that Muslim shit. Even though the Muslim Brotherhood has stated it eshews violence, several documents linked to the organization say otherwise, including one from 1991 that explained the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. is “settlement” , defined by the author as a form of jihad aimed at destroying Western civilization from within and allowing for the victory of Islam over other religions. Hmmm.

I'm reading American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson, and I recalled this passage:

In a 1786 joint message to their superiors in Congress, Ambassadors John Adams (Britain) and Thomas Jefferson (France) described the audacity of Barbary pirate terrorist attacks. Adams and Jefferson asked the ambassador from Tripoli on what grounds these outrageous acts of unbridled savagery could be justified. “The Ambassador answered us that is was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not acknowledge their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners…”

Some things don't change. Rashad Hussain should be booted; better yet, he should resign. NOT for his beliefs or affiliation to any Muslim group (that's a separate issue) - but, first and foremost, because he lied and tried to cover it up. How can Hussain be effective at his job as envoy when he will be forever scrutinized?