posted on February 16, 2007 08:37:28 AM new
Exactly
Posted: February 16, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Joseph Farah
Does the al-Qaida leadership watch U.S. political developments with interest?
Do Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri count on war protests in the U.S. as part of their strategic plans for victory?
Do the Islamo-fascist terrorists care about the battles in the U.S. Congress over the war in Iraq?
The answer to all of these questions is an unequivocal "yes."
Further proof was offered up this week by al-Zawahiri, who released a new audiotape message expressing his disappointment that Democrats, who campaigned in the mid-term congressional elections against the war in Iraq, haven't acted as quickly and decisively as he would like in bringing American military involvement in the Middle East to a conclusion.
"The people chose you due to your opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq, but it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss," al-Zawahiri said directly to members of the Democratic congressional caucus.
Showing an understanding of American politics and the internal debate taking place inside the country, al-Zawahiri drew comparisons between Iraq and Afghanistan and the U.S. failures in Vietnam 35 years ago.
He said "the people cooperating with the United States in Afghanistan and in Iraq would be abandoned by the Americans once they fail, the same way they did in Vietnam."
When WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein reported last fall that Middle East terror leaders outspokenly endorsed Democrats in their bid to take over the U.S. Congress, many people ignored the explosive story.
But here we are, again, after the elections, and America's most determined enemies – the people who attacked this country on Sept. 11, 2001 – are talking directly to Democratic members of Congress, obviously encouraged by their actions to abandon Iraq before the nation can stand on its own two feet against al-Qaida.
It's beginning to look like al-Qaida and the Democratic congressional majority have more in common – or think they do – than do the president of the United States and the Democratic majority. We've seen alliances like this in the past. Vietnam and the Cold War come to mind.
Where those alliances of convenience lead is seldom good.
There was a time in America when political differences ended at the water's edge. We were a better country for it. There was a time when Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, black and white, could come together in unity to fight those they recognized as common enemies.
I have many differences with President Bush. In fact, I believe his conduct of the war in Iraq is largely responsible for its unpopularity with the American people.
However, I am not blinded to the threat our nation faces from Islamo-fascism – as serious a threat as our country has faced since 1940.
Ignoring this threat won't make it go away. Appeasing this beast won't diminish its appetite. Running and hiding from it will only strengthen its resolve.
It is a fact that many in the U.S. today are increasingly unable to distinguish between right and wrong. This may be part of the problem. However, even the most morally blinded American should be able to see those who attacked us on 9-11 as an enemy that needs to be destroyed.
Like it or not, that is the enemy we fight in Iraq today. The war strategy called for bringing the terrorists to the battlefield of our choosing. They came. They are there now. We are engaged in mortal combat with them.
Do we really want to turn and run?
Al-Zawahiri and bin Laden are counting on the Democrats to do just that.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 16, 2007 01:25:55 PM new
Sadly this is another repeat of what the left did during VN. And they've learned NOTHING from it.
They refuse to admit they are aiding and abetting our enemies....even when they can read it for themselves.
But don't call THEM un-American....or you'll enrage them to no end.
The ONLY difference I can see this time between what they are doing now and what they did then....is they seem to be willing to allow, and/or they're actively working towards our failure in the ME for nothing more than their ANGER and with some their HATRED of this President.
Imo, our enemies couldn't have any better support that they're already getting the the radical, anti-war lefties.
They will be the downfall of America one day. And it really saddens me to watch it happening once again. Just like da ja vue all over again.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 16, 2007 02:36:05 PM new
So YOU are proposing that if Americans are silent about the war, keep pouring UNACCOUNTED FOR BILLIONS into Iraq, run the U.S as a dictatorship...
Craw to answer your question, reread this:
Further proof was offered up this week by al-Zawahiri, who released a new audiotape message expressing his disappointment that Democrats, who campaigned in the mid-term congressional elections against the war in Iraq, haven't acted as quickly and decisively as he would like in bringing American military involvement in the Middle East to a conclusion.
In other words you demomorons are AIDING the enemy, and that is a treasonable offense, punishable by death.
Bear,
Who is Joseph Farah? What News group does he report for?
Does it matter? If it is that much of a concern to you use your computer and search for him.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
[ edited by Bear1949 on Feb 16, 2007 02:40 PM ]
posted on February 16, 2007 06:13:51 PM newSadly this is another repeat of what the left did during VN. And they've learned NOTHING from it.
What is even worse is those on the right can not see the similarities between the Vietnam War and the Iraq war.
I can't wait for Bush to start a Nixon-like "achieving Peace with Honor" speech.
However, anti-war feelings also began to rise. Many Americans opposed the war on moral grounds, seeing it as a destructive war against Vietnamese independence, or as intervention in a foreign civil war; others opposed it because they felt it lacked clear objectives and appeared to be unwinnable.
Bear and Linda are accusing those that spoke out against the Vietnam war of helping the enemy. It is nice to see that is how you treat the soldiers of the Vietnam war. You accuse them of helping the enemy.
Many anti-war activists were themselves Vietnam Veterans, as evidenced by the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
Are you going to also accuse those same veterans plus the Iraq war veterans that are against the war of helping the enemy?
Now how anti-American is that? You two are dishonoring those that fought to protect your freedoms. Your actions show that you do not care about anything except repeating what comes out of Bush's mouth. You two belong in any country that has a dictator as a ruler.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 16, 2007 08:40:29 PM new
bear, your article fails to mention ( imagine that) that Al Zawahiri also condemns American Democrats "as one side of the same coin of tyranny, criminality and failure" for failing to challenge Bush policies as they said they would in the election. Looks to me like he figures Republicans and Democrats in this country in fact are on the same page. This is bad, how?
posted on February 16, 2007 08:48:06 PM new
peepa, Farah is the Arab-American "news" director of WorldNet Daily...aside from his stellar performance in such blockbusters as WND's "investigation" of the Vince Foster suicide, he is perhaps best know for his support of the murder of adulterers.
posted on February 17, 2007 07:17:35 AM new
"Bear and Linda are accusing those that spoke out against the Vietnam war of helping the enemy."
Speaking for myself, YES, I am.
And the communists THANKED all the anti-VN-war protestors. Said they were ready to admit defeat to us....but held on because they could see the anti-war folks were helping them out.
They even gave a special AWARD to kerry, fonda for all their help. Traitors, imo.
So history proves to us that had the anti-war idiots been on America's side...rather than the communists side....WE would have won that war/conflict.
But....we didn't...and ALL thanks to the anti-war left. Who, imo, ALWAYS are on our enemies side...against their own Nation.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 17, 2007 07:49:45 AM new
"""And the communists THANKED all the anti-VN-war protestors. Said they were ready to admit defeat to us....but held on because they could see the anti-war folks were helping them out."""
linduh would've make such a good little Communist...she bellieves every word THEY say....
Sad to see an American fall so easily for Communist, and bush, propaganda....and ridicule the words and actions of our war veterans......
posted on February 17, 2007 08:42:48 AM new
Be on our enemies side, sybil. No surprise to me.
But I remain hopeful that MOST American's don't want to see a VICTORY for our enemies. They're NOT like you....who are cowards to fight these terrorists....they are not like you...who blame America for everything that is wrong in the world today.
----------------------
for the poll driven:
Two-thirds of those questioned oppose cutting money for the troops and 60 percent are against cutting money intended just for the additional troops.
Nearly half of Democrats oppose cutting money for the additional troops and almost two-thirds of those who know someone who has served in Iraq oppose that idea.
Democrats are considering how to pressure Bush to scale back military efforts in Iraq. They are wary of the political risks of cutting money, which could invite charges that they do not support the troops.
Yep they'd better wake up and smell the roses....or once again intelligent Americans will see the dem party NOT as a party to work towards SUCCESS....but as a party who brings support to America FAILING.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 17, 2007 08:53 AM ]
posted on February 17, 2007 08:57:47 AM new
Another opinion I STRONGLY agree with. Taken from yesterdays Patriot Post:
Pelosi Pre-emptive Surrender Disorder (PPSD)
Apparently Democrats aren't content with surrender in Iraq. Deciding that the fight against radical Islamic terror is just not worth waging, Pelosi this week led her Democrat colleagues in pre-emptive surrender by declaring, "There is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."
Leaving aside for a moment the separation-of-powers issues surrounding Pelosi's statement, what does it say about the party in control of Congress when it openly announces that, if its members have their way, the military option for dealing with Iran will not be available to the United States?
Is there any way more certain to embolden an enemy than to announce openly that the military option is not an option?
And they wonder why Americans don't trust them on national security...
Fellow Patriots, we hope as fervently as anyone that the security challenges posed by Iran can be resolved without resorting to war, but it is sheer folly to tell a potential adversary that it faces no threat of war.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 17, 2007 09:32:11 AM new
.
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged— President Abraham Lincoln
posted on February 17, 2007 09:33:41 AM newBear and Linda are accusing those that spoke out against the Vietnam war of helping the enemy."
Speaking for myself, YES, I am.
It is so nice to see you really do not support the troops beack then or now because some of those people that spoke out against the war were/are members of the military that served in those conflicts. So in my opinion once again you are nothing but an ANTI-AMERICAN HYPOCRITE. You can take your "I support the troops" line of BS and shove it.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 17, 2007 11:05:26 AM new
That's what we should be doing right now, Bear. I can't believe that some Americans actually support the radical left actually working FOR our enemies.
Tying the hands of our troops to accomplish their mission...while doing NOTHING to support or back up our troops. They want to put them in further HARMS way....thereby HELPING our enemies.
ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE
Mr. Murtha has a different
idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops.
In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment.
His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional?
Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do.
"What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.
Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq.
He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties."
[JUST LIKE I'VE been saying happened in VIETNAM]
He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year.
He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?
It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership.
Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha's remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support. Does Ms. Pelosi really believe that the debate she orchestrated this week was not "the real vote"? If the answer is yes, she is maneuvering her party in a way that can only do it harm.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 17, 2007 11:07 AM ]
posted on February 17, 2007 07:10:36 PM newCongressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged— President Abraham Lincoln
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Lincoln never said anything like that, bear old pal. You oughtta check those silly forwards your "friends" send you before you bare your butt here. Those words were Made UP and spuriously attributed to Lincoln by some conservative genius commentator named J. Michael Waller. I wonder you didn't hear in the news recently how another genius, Diana Irey used the same quote in her campaign against John Murtha. She retracted the quote and apologized after the fact, but the damage was done. Ever since, no-brains have been forwarding that lie all over the net. I'm guessing WND didn't mention the gaffe. Imagine that.
posted on February 18, 2007 07:57:55 AM newEver since, no-brains have been forwarding that lie all over the net. I'm guessing WND didn't mention the gaffe. Imagine that.
I bet Bear will come back and say it was all a joke, that he new all along it wasnt true.
I am surprised Bear did not know it was a made up quote, wasn't he born around the time that Lincoln was president.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 19, 2007 10:41:20 AM new
"Al-Qaida and its U.S. political allies"
....that would be the democrats.
======
An op-ed that pretty much describes the democrat party, imo:
Democrats surrender
By Carol Platt Liebau
Monday, February 19, 2007
townhall.com
With their vote on Friday for a non-binding resolution condemning the President's troop surge, the Democrats have finally formalized their position: They have thrown their political fortunes squarely behind an American defeat in Iraq.
Of course, the vote was shameful, given General Petraeus' admonition that such a resolution would do nothing but dispirit our soldiers and embolden our enemies. But it was also dangerous - " because it means that, in order to realize their primary goal of maintaining and expanding their political power, Democrats now have a real and concrete stake in ensuring that America fails in Iraq.
The Democratic Party has been on the wrong side of every war from Vietnam forward.
Democrats forced American defeat in Vietnam, with behavior so feckless that - " although they prevailed at the time" - they gained a reputation for weakness on national security that lingers to this day.
They are the ones who were convinced that a nuclear freeze was the only path to peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union - " and opposed President Reagan's "peace through strength" approach every step of the way.
The only prominent opponents of the 1991 Gulf War were Democrats - "[b]had their views prevailed, Saddam Hussein would have occupied Kuwait indefinitely.
And of course, Bill Clinton's manifold foreign policy failures - " from ignoring terrorist attacks to declining custody of Osama bin Laden " have been well-documented.
Given this sorry record, perhaps it's no wonder that Democrats are eager both to claim foresight on a foreign affairs matter and to see their longstanding pessimism about American military might supposedly vindicated.
The only problem is that their political interests now conflict with the national interest: An American defeat is necessary for them to realize these objectives.
Accordingly, Democrats' behavior has far surpassed cherishing a furtive, unspoken interest in America encountering obstacles in Iraq. They now seem intent on creating them. They have done more than support (in the House) and promote (in the Senate) measures that signal irresolution, weakness and division to America's enemies.
In the national security equivalent of "talking down"¯ the economy, prominent Democrats - " most recently Senator Charles Schumer " have openly declared the war in Iraq to be "unwinnable,"¯ even as terror operations in Baghdad have fallen by 80% since Iraqi and U.S. forces began implementing the new security plan, according to the Iraqi army's spokesman.
What's more, John Murtha and other Democrats are proposing a "slow bleed"¯ strategy for forcing American defeat, by seeking to impose funding restrictions on the war and making it difficult for the Administration to man the troop surge.
It's a dishonorable and sneaky way render US success in Iraq impossible while sparing the Democrats the unpopularity that would result from their pursuing the same end more transparently (by, for example, withholding funding).
Of course, no one knows if the "surge"¯ - "or America's involvement in Iraq - " will ultimately succeed.
But one thing is certain: If the Democrats have their way, the mission will inevitably end in failure for the United States, and justification (as well as encouragement) for the Islamofascist terrorists' animating belief that the United States is too weak and decadent to defeat them.
Even as it becomes ever clearer that their political interests are inescapably aligned with those of America's enemies in Iraq and elsewhere, the Democrats are convinced that they occupy the political cat-bird seat.
But whatever their own doubts about the prosecution or ultimate outcome of the war, the American people are right to be wary of a party that" for its own political benefit " must hope for and embrace an unnecessary U.S. military defeat simply to consolidate and enhance its own power.
==========
Carol Platt Liebau is an attorney, political commentator and guest radio talk show host based near Los Angeles
==============
So while many have whined about my tag line....it appears Ann Coulter was correct.....the dems want us to withdraw and WAIT UNTIL WE'RE ATTACKED HERE AT HOME.
SHAME ON THEM!!!
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 19, 2007 12:37:05 PM newWAIT UNTIL WE'RE ATTACKED HERE AT HOME.
We were attacked at home during a REPUBLICAN'S WATCH. ENOUGH SAID.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 19, 2007 01:07:17 PM new
Again "he who believes Bush doesn't approve of this war" lol lol lol I CRACK up EVERYtime I read that ignorant statement......
....doesn't want to recognize that the 9-11 terrorists were PLANNING their attack during the clinton administration...for TWO years.
Whereas THIS administration has FOILED many attacks on our soil since he's been in office. Even though he's had to FIGHT with the liberals to do so.
============
And here's another article about murtha and all those liberals who would SELL OUT AMERICA in a NY minute. tsk tsk tsk
AND it includes a poll that shows IF the question is worded correctly....MOST Americans WANT to see the US succeed in Iraq.
Unlike the liberals in congress who are trying to tie the hands of our troops by micromanaging the war.....rather than having the GUTS to just stop funding it.
COWARDS they all are. Want to 'talk' about doing something to end our envolvement but don't have the GUTS to actually do it.
So meanwhile they're going to TRY and tie the hands of our soldiers so they CAN'T function the way they NEED to be able to. tsk tsk tsk
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 19, 2007 05:33:37 PM newAgain "he who believes Bush doesn't approve of this war" lol lol lol I CRACK up EVERYtime I read that ignorant statement......
This coming from the person that believes in the CANADIAN LANGUAGE and doesnt know the difference between someone's comments and what is actually published in a news article. LOL
Are you also going to discount the fact that Bush has said you can not win the war on terror?
AND it includes a poll that shows IF the question is worded correctly....MOST Americans WANT to see the US succeed in Iraq.
Bush has yet to give a definition of what win or succeed in Iraq is.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 19, 2007 05:39:55 PM new
Whether or not Lincoln made that statement is immaterial, the fact of the statement is true more today than ever.
That the statement is being ridiculed by those of you on the left, tells me you are feeling threatened by it.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on February 19, 2007 05:47:09 PM new
Knock those who are against the war all you want Linda, but the troops actually fighting in Iraq do not even believe Bush's surge will work. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16616389.htm
You have already pointed out that you wouuld rather believe the enemy over actual vets and the troops fighting in the war, so I know you will not believe the above article.
Furthermore, the Iraqis are not stepping up as Bush had hopped so why is the Iraqi government not being hed accountable as Bush promised?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
