Al Qaeda's Message To Democrats
By California Yankee Posted in War — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In the new tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, the al Qaeda leader tells the leaders of the Democratic party that the terrorists are responsible for the defeat of congressional Republicans:
"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost," Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News.
Zawahri calls on the Democrats to negotiate with him and Osama bin Laden, not others in the Islamic world who Zawahri says cannot help.
"And if you don't refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate," he said.
Lucky for the Democrats, now that John Kerry has traveled to Syria to speak with the leader of the terrorist state, they now have a ready and experienced negotiator.
Read on.
Zawahri may be right, but the Democrats couldn't have done it without the help of the biased media wing of the Democratic Party.
It's not just RedStaters that perceive the Democrats as weak; our enemies do as well. I expect that the more left-leaning will say it is foolish to assert that the Democrats efforts to undermine the President for the last six years have played into the terrorists' hands. The problem is the terrorists believe it.
Thank goodness President Bush still has two more years.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The Horn on Fire — Comments (27) »
Al Qaeda's Message To Democrats 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won...
Why is a Democrat win the equivalent of an al Qaeda win? Can Nancy Pelosi explain this one?
Re: Why is a Democrat win the equivalent of an al Qaeda win? Can Nancy Pelosi explain this one?
Because the Jihadis are nuttier than a five year old fruitcake and would take credit for the sun rising in the morning if theuy could figure out how.
when it comes to our own domestic politics we should pay them no attention whatsoever lest we just encourage these delusions of grandeur.
Now we know. Resign yourselves to the fact that a lot of Americans are going to die in the next ten years at the hands of terrorists. But it is OK because a few thousand voters in about 30 congressional districts decided that way.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The response to the weakness displayed by the country last month has only begun. Throw the Iraq Study Group and Democrat Caucus's unauthorized State Department for their government in hiding on top of it and we're going to have a lot of emboldened terrorists on our hands in the years ahead.
Unfortunately the MSM and the rest of the Democrat Party will succeed on blaming it on Bush for at least the next five years, which is why looking at upwards of ten before the country finally gets it again.
Re: The response to the weakness displayed by the country last month has only begun.
Look, I know this is a Republican website and all, but I don't see that "weakness" can be defined as the votrers turning out of office a bunch of politicains whom they felt had failed to their job properly-- with some good reason, including reasons that RedStaters have expressed assent to. Nor do I see how this makes it any more likely that Al Qaida or anyone else will get away with terror attacks. Both parties are quite firmly opposed to that sort of thing you know and since the GOP still controls the branch of government responsible for national defense you should be able to rest easy.
The GOP also controlled the branch of government responsible for defense when a Democratic Congress cut off all support for South Vietnam, granting that Nixon was out.
With a truly lame duck Bush who would have had trouble even without the election results I'm not sure the situation is much different today.
Wait and see but I'm not optimistic.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Nor do I see how this makes it any more likely that Al Qaida or anyone else will get away with terror attacks
They're not looking to "get away" with attacks, they're suicide bombers. But I forget, you intent to prosecute them or at least play defense and always deal with them after the act.
It's quite obvious by the message from Al Qaida they believe the election was a sign of weakness. This same sign of weakness is seen in all these U.S. Senator pilgrimages to Damascus and the ISG report. Weakness breads aggression, something liberals don't understand. It also sends a message to those in the region that are on the side of freedom, stand with the Americans and you'll end up like the Shiites at the end of Gulf War I. Perception is reality and the world perceives November as the first step in American abandoning its cause for freedom in the region. There will be consequences.
Sure, Democrats are against terrorism. They're also against poverty, teen pregnancy and crime. They just have an uncanny ability to produce the opposite of what they intend.
The dems are what the dems are- of course they are going to agitate for the defeatest route and our enemies certainly are aware of that.
It's hard for me to get worked up about the dems, they are what they are. Bush led us down this path, and hey- God bless him for remaining steadfast, but he has got to be the single worst communicator in the history of the modern presidency, and that has certainly contributed to where we are now.
But it goes beyond communication- I'm not going to argue about how many troops were needed, but I believed in going into Iraq and supported Bush, but assumed obvious things would be taken care of- like shutting down the Syrian and Iraninan borders, providing adequate security for infrastructure like oil and electricity, which last I heard are still below pre-war levels, and securing major population centers like Baghdad, which if it's going to take some 20,000+ "surge" it's far beyond me why that's happening now and not two years ago.
So yes, Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy, Kerry, etc. are dispicable and I can't argue with al-qaeda gloating about the democrats succcess, but ultimately its not about the democrats, its about Bush and his dogs*** communication skills and his mindblowing incapacity to comprehend obvious critical things to achieve success in Iraq as noted above.
The dem-leftists make me sick, and the fact that A.Q. is gloating about the election makes me sicker, but ultimately this is all on Bush- there is no way to argue that the situation over there is not worse now in 2006 than it was in 2004. Call me nuts or naive but I still believe we can succeed there, but the Bush administration's inability to address obvious problems over there is the real reason that Zawahiri is able release this disgusting tape.
Zawahri says so then it must be true. It certainly isn't possible that he is trying to trying to seek relevance again and hoping to drive a further wedge in American domestic politics by appearing to support one party over the other.
You guys certainly give these guys a lot of credit for having a very nuanced understanding of American domestic politics.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
appearing to support one party over the other.
Don't kid yourself, Zawahri and the rest actually prefer the Democrats. They are not apolitical when it comes to U.S. elections.
As for hoping to drive a further wedge, at least these guys only put this stuff out once every couple of months unlike the Dems who have made it a point to show their hatred and contempt for the Commander in Chief each and every day since early 2003.
Don't kid yourself, Zawahri and the rest actually prefer the Democrats. They are not apolitical when it comes to U.S. elections.
And you know this how? You get on a conference call with the Al Qaeda leadership recently?
The fact that you FAVORABLY compare Al Qaeda over the Democratic Party shows how out of touch you really are.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
favorably compare Al Qaeda over the Democrat Party. I find both beyond the moral pale and have no use for either, although Al Qaeda is beyond the moral pale to a much larger degree.
The fact you know little when it comes to history, and what a Democrat Congress did to Nixon to effect the outcome of the Vietnam war in particular shows how out of touch you really are. And let's add your belief terrorists are looking to "get away" with something in as well.
"hawk, weakness on defense DEFINES the Dem party since
The McGovernite Infiltration (sounds like a Ludlum novel doesn't it). The Dems gutted the CIA with the Church Commission.
Next, two words: Jimmy Carter
Next they opposed Reagan's characterization of the USSR as an Evil Empire and all measures to oppose them, incl increases in the military budget, support for anti-communists around the world, missiles in Europe, bombing of Libya, liberation of Grenada,
hell, everything the US has done militarily since 1968
except for the Afghan War
that made, as you suggest and I agree, Zawahiri irrelevant but made UBL a sign we haven't properly "focused" on Afghanistan?
can't both be true
see BDS
btw, I'm in the day before the day before Christmas spirit, but I still have only so much patience in dealing with dems in denial about the Dems defense policies. Why is it that Dems don't want to be characterized as weak on defense when everything they do in this area is weak...
www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com
system in Spain.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
is because he sees the war as having a psychological dimension as well as military, hardly a first. It's his judgement and,excepting the blind, who can say he doesn't have a point.
He has seen wavering and weakness in this country and judges accordingly. He has seen a roaring furor over the way we treat prisoners and 24 hour blips on how they treat theirs, the ones who live long enough to be considered prisoners. He is, he must be, aware of the statements of many of our political figures [I hesitate to use the word"leaders"] as well as the misnamed pundits. He adds these and more into his calculations, whether he cites them is irrelaevant, and exudes the confidence that brings back the memories of smug North Vietnamese officials.
He probably knows, as Napolean said that " the moral is to war as three is to one".
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Zawahri might be the worst politician and "negotiator" I have heard in my life.
He might've had a chance to hope the Democrats would wind up being good for him... until he said it publicly. The Democrats have principles, whatever they are, but they also want to stay in office. The moment Zawahri said that, and made it painfully clear that he believed the Democrats would help, he spoiled his chances. Now no Democrat in their right mind would do something that Zawahri would like, because he's pointed out that he'd certainly like it. The Democrats are still politicians; they are more concerned with staying in office than working with their ideals, and if the GOP can wave Zawahri in their face they'd best do ALL they can to keep from abiding by Zawahri's suggestions. Either that or wind up like the Whig and Federalist parties of old.
This hurt Zawahri's chances in "influencing" American policy way more than it helped. That is, assuming the GOP can use this message next time the Democrats do something stupid. (And even if that opposition fails, the Democrats would collapse in the next even-numbered year.)
I think this message helped the USA in the war on terror by paving the way for Democratic disenchantment with appeasement. A united Congress could be far more dangerous to terrorists than the mostly-Republican obstructionist-minority one we had two months ago.
that Zawahiri would like within an hour of the sun rising in the USA after the statement was made. Democrats don't base their policies on what Zawahiri doesn't like. They base their policies on their liberal world view that argues that if we will be nice to the Zawahiris, they will be nice to us.
Zawahiri likes talk that ridicules and weakens the Commander of forces waging war against him and his movement, ie President Bush, and no democrat has spoken 2 sentences in 5 years that did not attack the president.
Zawahiri likes democrat intentions to investigate the CIA; to stop spying on al qaida on phone lines; to stop aggressive interrogation of captured al qaida; to make sure the US leaves Iraq seen as losers; etc
The Dems shared talking points with Zawahiri, Iran and Saddam's lawyer for the last 5 years.
This imagined hawkish Dem party is a fantasy of yours. Pure fantasy. The only thing that MIGHT make it so is if we lost millions in attacks in America in Blue states. maybe then??
www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson http://gamecock.townhall.com
After, he must be smart if he supports the Dems, huh?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Bush remaining steadfast is paramount here. Let's hope two more years is enough.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.