- The Washington Times - Friday, June 14, 2002

The woman says she spent hours face to face with Mohamed Atta a terrifying thought in itself. No surprise, then, that the account of that 2000 encounter, as told to ABC by Johnelle Bryant, the hapless government loan officer who met with the al Qaeda operative, is a shocking read.
And not just because the "very, very scary-looking" terrorist asked Ms. Bryant what would prevent him from cutting her throat after she failed to pony up a loan of $650,000 to finance his "dream" of a charter-cum-crop-dusting business. Or because the ringleader of the September 11 hijacking quizzed her about security at the World Trade Center and later tried to buy an aerial photograph of Washington right off her wall; or because he suddenly broached the topic of recruiting this all-too-sweet-natured U.S. Department of Agriculture official for "Akeda" which is how she remembered him pronouncing al Qaeda.
Ms. Bryant failed miserably to "connect the dots," as they tediously say these days, but that's not it, either. Back in 2000, mixing "Mohamed" with "crop duster" just didn't flutter the average pulse. "Akeda" still, as Ms. Bryant put it, sounded "like a woman's name" and Osama bin Laden "could have been a character on Star Wars."
All of which sounds practically Edenic. Still, there's something else that should give pause about what happened and didn't happen when the terrorist met the bureaucrat. First, Atta didn't get the loan, and he darn well should have an extended loan, that is, to the loony bin. The fact that Ms. Bryant, in the face of Atta's threats and uncontrolled tirades, "tried to talk very nicely [to] calm him back down" instead of excusing herself to call in nets and stun guns is astonishing although perhaps not inexplicable. (More on that below.)
The second shockeroo is how very, very ignorant, primitive even, Atta was. We knew that, of course, but the interview underscores the fact that there's nothing in these al Qaeda killers of the evil epicure or twisted aesthete who pops up in Bondian thrillers. As Ms. Bryant discovered, Atta was simple enough to believe a federal loan office would instantly spew cash for the asking. He thought public monuments were off limits to tourists. He found the Yellow Pages to be a revelation, and took television advertising quite literally. Displaying a decidedly medieval turn-of-mind, he assumed Ms. Bryant, who works for the federal government in Florida, had been "banished" from the nation's capital, where, of course, the American "parliament" is. Besides being an Islamist mass-murderer, the man was a yokel.
But while he may have made an easy mark for Three Card Monte, he knew enough to play a kind of race card against Ms. Bryant. After she turned him down for a loan, she recalled, "He kind of jumped back in his chair and started accusing me of discriminating against him because he was not a United States citizen, and he was from a foreign country." Interesting how he knew to say that.
It didn't work. Our dear Ms. Bryant patiently explained to the lunatic in the office that her agency didn't fund his sort of operation. End of story at least, this particular chapter of it. But I have to wonder whether some fear on Ms. Bryant's part, conscious or not, of appearing to "discriminate" against a Middle Easterner might have affected her decision not to act in any way on Atta's extremely menacing behavior. Such hesitation, such suspension of disbelief, is the corollary of the lessons of political correctness that teach us to see things not as they are but as its acolytes think they should be. I can't help relating this, for example, to the $25,000 in charity money raised by the New York Times September 11 Neediest Fund that has been earmarked for the Jewish Museum to teach tolerance for Islam at two high schools near Ground Zero.
It would seem to be no accident Atta was able to seize on a race card in his attempt to bully an American bureaucrat. That is, America may now be more famous for its decrees against "discrimination" (and discrimination's kissing cousin, "profiling") than for its "parliament." And such decrees, it must be said, display an allegiance to dogma no less fanatical than any ayatollah's fatwa. Consider the senseless pledge of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, who, while acknowledging that a sub rosa fear of engaging in racial profiling had paralyzed his agency's terrorism investigations in the past, vowed to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that his agents would never engage in the practice in the future.
It looks like some people never learn or, perhaps, have learned too well. Which has to make us wonder what happens the next time the terrorist knocks on the door.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide