|
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Islamists Rising
As the dust of the 2006 election settles, it's clear who the real winners are. Our enemies pay far more attention to our politics than most of our citizens, and know just how to manipulate our media to achieve maximum impact. Think it's a coincidence that October was constantly referred to as, "the bloodiest month since 2003" in every newscast for weeks before the election? Just as they swayed the Spanish election in 2004 -- but failed to do three times in Iraq -- the enemy has influenced our own political process to benefit themselves.
More than anything, the 2006 election results have sent a message to members of our own military. What must they think when they see Dick "our troops are like Nazis" Durbin taking the number two position in the Senate, and Jack "they're guilty without a trial" Murtha vying for second banana in the House? The new leaders of Congress will meet next week with former presidential candidate George "Come Home America" McGovern, whose 1972 bid failed due to his radical anti-war stance. McGovern will be advising our new leaders on how best to pull the troops out of Iraq by June of 2007. What other conclusion can anyone draw than that we, as a country, do not support those who fight on our behalf?
By putting into power those who advocate retreat from Iraq in the face of the enemy, we have failed the troops who depend on our moral support to sustain them. The only Democrat plans for Iraq I've ever heard are "cut and run" (immediate withdrawal), "cut and walk" (phased withdrawal), "split and quit" (divide the country, declare victory and leave) and "hide and bide" (retreat to secure bases and let Sunni, Shi'a, Kurds, Ba'athists and al-Qaeda fight it out). Not one major Democratic leader has called for winning, and our troops know that. Nancy Pelosi, who will soon take her place as Speaker of the House, considers Iraq "not a war to be won, but a situation to be solved." By putting the Defeatocrats in charge, we have sent our troops the clear message that we do not support them or their mission.
What's even worse, we've sent our enemies that message, too.
Al-Qaeda and other terrorists have always believed that they could win because we Americans are too soft for war, and can't take the sight of our own blood. Those fighting our troops in Iraq have continued against the odds because they knew that if they keep up the pressure, the anti-war Democrats would push for retreat... and now, they control Congress. Terrorists have understood all along that a Democratic sweep of Congress would be their victory. All they had to do to reach that conclusion was listen to the speeches of major Democrats over the last few years.
"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," said Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, adding that "there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq." Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance." Hamas leader Abu Abdullah said that talk of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation." Islamic Jihad leader Abu Ayman said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.
AP reports that Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is well satisfied by the way his efforts affected the 2006 election. Speaking via audio tape, al-Muhajir "welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He added that the group's fighters would not rest until they had blown up the White House." According to Reuters, "Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran."
Yet the Democrats never question why our enemies would celebrate their victory.
Osama bin Laden declared war on what he considered a "weak horse" (1996) and a "paper tiger" (1998) after watching American troops ordered to pull out of Somalia after only 18 casualties in 1993. The attacks by thugs and terrorists in Iraq today are aimed, not at our troops or the innocent Iraqis who die in them, but at our will to fight. America, our enemies believe, has no stomach for battle.
So the American people have spoken, and -- whatever the truth may be -- it sure sounds as though we said, "the enemy was right."
Posted at Sunday, November 12, 2006 by CavalierX
 | | | Jeannie L'Esperance
November 12, 2006 05:44 PM PST
An excellent piece, I have been so miserable since Wednesday...I can only repeat the line from the poem "If hopes be dupes, fears may be liars"...SAY NOT THE STRUGGLE NAUGHT AVAILETH | |
| | | Laura
November 12, 2006 07:06 PM PST
Your article points out exactly what this election was about. Pure and simple the terrorists won. The Dems and their media are in the process of giving away the country. Oh, and don't forget our colleges who propagandize our young people. God help us. | |
| | | Gull
November 12, 2006 11:50 PM PST
This is one of the best assessments I've read -- by far. A "hat tip" to you. | |
| | | Jimbob
November 16, 2006 09:50 AM PST
Firstly, don't be bitter. The war on terrorism until now has fought only the symptoms, and not really done a very good job of it. Now, hopefully, a new approach will be tried, tackling causes... Perhaps with more success.
Secondly, I'm not sure that pulling the troops out and therefore stopping them from getting killed is a bad thing. This really is not a game and the situation as it stands is quite unnacceptable for a civilized nation.
But, of course, you're worried about financial losses for Halliburton and friends. True, in that light there could be a problem, though I'm sure they have enough money to employ their own thugs.
Don't forget that there were no terrorists in Iraq until after the "military campaign victory" was announced by Dubya.
Also take into account the desires of the Iraqi people. (Much you care about that, clearly.)
I reckon you should not read too much into political announcements by the Iranian enemy. Anyhow, Rumsfeld has already been exposed as a not very nice guy in general, and as a complete liar in particular. (By the way, what do you think of the new man, Gates?)
Also note that al-Muhajir still wants to blow up the Whitehouse - whatever the political colours of the President at the time may be.
Finally, an important note - the story of the Spanish election swing has been very badly told. What happened, believe it or not, was that the Spanish people expressed their dislike for lying politicians. I know this can be hard to understand for Americans who are so accustomed to politicians lying that they don't even notice anymore, but that's what happened. Spanish people are proud and don't like being duped by heir leaders. Spain has had problems with terrorists for decades - this is really nothing at all new to them. It would be nice if you could understand this. It really is quite simple. | |
| | | Cheetah
November 16, 2006 05:13 PM PST
The party of decency, honor, integrity, and high principles is now in power in Congress. I am told that it will keep us safe and secure. So, why would I be bitter?
My friends and I are just sitting here speculating as to where the first suicide bomber will strike. | |
| | | Cheetah
November 16, 2006 05:15 PM PST
Just to be perfectly clear the party I'm referring to will take control in January, '07. | |
| | | CavalierX
November 16, 2006 06:42 PM PST
>hopefully, a new approach will be
>tried
Retreat in the face of the enemy is hardly a new approach, or an "approach" at all.
>I'm not sure that pulling the
>troops out and therefore stopping
>them from getting killed is a bad
>thing.
Perhaps a better way to stop them from being killed (the poor helpless little darlings!) would be to let them kill the enemy.
>But, of course, you're worried
>about financial losses for
>Halliburton and friends.
But, of course, with that statement, you've just proven yourself a moron and troll.
>there were no terrorists in Iraq
>until after the "military campaign
>victory" was announced by Dubya.
...not to mention that you're completely ignorant of history. I suggest you study Saddam's long support of terrorism, including his harboring terrorists like Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yasin (remember the 1993 WTC bombing?), Khala Khadar al-Salahat and, of course, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. That's just the highlights.
>Also take into account the desires
>of the Iraqi people. (Much you
>care about that, clearly.)
You mean the 12 million Iraqis who voted several times for a democratic, pluralistic government? The ones whose cries obviously don't reach your deaf ears? I will never understand why Liberals hate Iraqis so much that they want them to live under oppressive governments.
>the story of the Spanish election
>swing has been very badly told
I had a very interesting discussion about that with a Spanish professor of political science when I visited that country last year. He and I agreed that the terror attacks were the determining factor in the election. Aznar would have won by several percentage points, had the attacks not happened. Many people changed their votes, or came out to vote, because Zapatero promised to bring the troops home.
>the Spanish people expressed
>their dislike for lying politicians
Only the most naive of Leftists can possibly think that Leftist politicians don't lie.
>It really is quite simple.
As are you. | |
| | | Laura
November 17, 2006 05:50 AM PST
Jimbob has been completely brainwashed. He obviously does not consider facts when making his obscene statements. | |
| | | OneNephi
November 18, 2006 10:41 PM PST
CavX,
You assume - perhaps correctly - that SOME of the troops respond negatively as you assert when considering the Dem's win and Durbin and Murtha heading to leadership positions or other positions of power.
But for every soldier who feels that way, there is another soldier (or two or three) who are sick and tired of this war being run by a bunch of brain dead idiots.
Good analysis considers all points of view. Your analysis is just ramblings of a disgruntled Repug. Get over it. | |
| | | Dogtag
November 19, 2006 07:00 AM PST
MOST of the troops respond negatively. | |
| | | CavalierX
November 19, 2006 07:32 AM PST
Seriously, Nephi, can you name any troops who reacted positively to being likened by Durbin to "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings?" Or to Murtha's absolute certainty that they "killed innocent civilians in cold blood?" Do you really know any members of the military who look at those two and say, "yeah, I want them running the country?" | |
| | | OneNephi
November 19, 2006 01:21 PM PST
I am not familiar with the Gulag, etc. quote. But in equal seriousness, there are alot of returning troops (and certainly retired generals, etc.) who express dismay at the Bushies' handling of the war - albeit dumping Rummy was a good start to a new direction. | |
| | | OneNephi
November 19, 2006 01:42 PM PST
OK. I have now read your diatribe on Dick Durbin from June 2006 - I am now informed, you might say. Interestingly, however, the title of the post argues against your point - it was dicta, dicta that you have taken entirely out of context.
Further, I think it is disingenuous to equate the CIA, FBI and others controlling life at Gitmo with "the toops." The great majority of "the troops" have nothing to do with the abhorent activities that take place at Gitmo - those that do, and who are abusive to the detainees, are jackboot thugs under Dickus Cheney.
The behavior of these individuals, which is condoned by the highest in command, is a stain on this great nation that will take generations to clean.
I agree wholeheartedly with Durbin's statement, when viewed in the proper and intended context. | |
| | | CavalierX
November 19, 2006 03:09 PM PST
>those that do, and who are
>abusive to the detainees
Actually, there has been no "abuse" at Gitmo. If anything, the detainees regularly abuse our troops, who treat them far better than they have any right to be treated. If you researched the facts before forming your opinions, you would know that. Then again, if you did that, you wouldn't be a Liberal.
>jackboot thugs under Dickus
>Cheney
Oh, so now you agree with Durbin that our troops are just like Nazis, etc. Only you throw in Dick Cheney, for some bizzarre reason. And with a third-grade-style name-calling, to boot. Truly, Liberalism is a mental disease. | |
| | | CavalierX
November 19, 2006 03:12 PM PST
>who express dismay at the
>Bushies' handling of the war
Which, of course, does NOT equate to approving the elevation of Durbin, Murtha and the other Democrats who regularly denigrate and disparage our troops. | |
| | | OneNephi
November 19, 2006 03:18 PM PST
Actually, my friend, I have extensive knowledge of the workings at Gitmo - both politically and legally. Indeed, I am one of the drafters of the current lot of habeas petitions on behalf of detainees and have been fighting Bush for basic rights for these folks for three years. I am not proving innocense or guilt, mind you, just the basic right to be able to confront the evidence that is to be used against the detainees. I know well the workings of Gitmo, be assured.
Again, before you launch into a rant and ban me from the website for representing detainees (5 Algerians) in habeas proceedings, be absolutely aware that my representation concerns not their innocense or guilt, but rather the basic, basic right that is provided through habeas - a right possessed by man since adoption of the Magna Carta circa 1215.
You want to talk Gitmo, then let's talk. | |
| | | CavalierX
November 19, 2006 04:01 PM PST
>habeas petitions on behalf of
>detainees
A right they do not and should not have.
>fighting Bush for basic rights for
>these folks for three years
They have already been granted far more rights than they deserve.
>the basic right to be able to
>confront the evidence that is to be
>used against the detainees
You mean the right to expose intelligence operations in open court. No, thank you. People like you are willing tools the enemy is using against us. Congratulations.
>habeas - a right possessed by
>man since adoption of the Magna
>Carta
Every prisoner in Gitmo, as you would know if you were who you claim, has already been before a review board. Some have been released. Indeed, given the fact that some who have met the criteria for release have returned to terrorism, it can be argued that the criteria were too lenient. As for those still in Gitmo, let them remain there until a military tribunal decides their fate. And if that takes another ten years, that's ten years of relative safety for the rest of us. | |
| | | OneNephi
November 19, 2006 07:20 PM PST
Could it be, my friend, that some of the detainees at Gitmo were unwilling conscripts of the Taliban? It is possible, isn't it? Wrong place, wrong time? Captured by the Northern Alliance and then bountied to the United States as a "truely bad guy"?
It is a fairly accepted fact that many at Gitmo are not terrorists and never were. But the administration's "mosaic" theory of intelligence demands that these folks be kept indefinitely, just so the bad guys that are at Gitmo (and I don't dispute that some truely bad guys are at Gitmo) aren't released.
May of today's detainees at Gitmo are yesterday's Japanese internees during WWII. We will live to feel shame about our behavior toward these individuals. | |
| | | CavalierX
November 19, 2006 09:17 PM PST
>Could it be, my friend, that some
>of the detainees at Gitmo were
>unwilling conscripts of the Taliban?
I'm sure they were all innocent little angels who never even saw a gun before one was shoved into their hands just as the Americans hove into view. If that's the defense they plan to offer at the military tribunal, I'm bringing the popcorn.
>It is a fairly accepted fact that
>many at Gitmo are not terrorists
>and never were.
It's a fairly accepted fact that every detainee at Gitmo was a full-on jihadist just itching to kill an infidel for Allah.
>May of today's detainees at Gitmo
>are yesterday's Japanese
>internees during WWII.
Hardly. They're equivalent to the Nazi detainees captured on the battlefield and interned in camps across America until the war was over and they could be sent before a tribunal. Or are you claiming that the Gitmo detainees were living peacefully in America and were rounded up solely because of their race? Save that one for your ignorant Liberal friends. | |
| | | CavalierX
November 20, 2006 05:21 AM PST
David Frum has a look into some of the lame excuses offered by some of the Gitmo detainees:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=4830b51b-0b5e-4ba9-b9f8-66180abd04e0 | |
| | | Laura
November 20, 2006 07:27 AM PST
If the wrong place wrong time defense fails you could always try the old 'it was my parents fault' defense. | |
|
|
