(WHAT) ARE THEY THINKING?

I

n the weeks since I returned from Indonesia last month, my amazement at the short-sightedness of the leaders of the Democrat Party has been only overcome by progressively greater waves of amazement. It had not seemed possible that some of these people were really as stupid as the characters they play on TV, but at this point in the reality show, evidence points not to 'possible' but probable -- if not all the way to a slam dunk.

Since attaining their new majority status and control over both legislative bodies, leaders Pelosi and Reid had been boasting that there is "a new sheriff in town," that they have a people's mandate to take control of the Iraq war and "end it," not to mention an ambitious agenda to pass vast quantities of legislation (100 hours? 100 days?). That last part is now virtually forgotten amid the concentration on making political hay on Iraq for the next elections.

Dingy Harry himself said as much, gleefully making calculations on how many seats he can pick up next year if Iraq sinks even deeper into hell -- which is why he was so overly anxious to jump the gun recently and not only declare the struggle "lost," but to attribute that view to both Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Rice (in their secret heart-of hearts, of course). He also said others would need to make up their own mind as to whether President Bush himself believes this.

The man from Searchlight had declared the struggle against al Qaeda (in Iraq) over. Reid pronounced his own country the loser (along with the other 30+ countries of the coalition, MNF-I), and thus implicitly, Osma's al Qaeda network the victors (and the Iranian mullocracy too).

Global Jihad must be soundly defeated in Iraq. But these people are willing to put a shoulder behind only two wars: the one against George Bush, and the one against carbon fricking dioxide.

Then of course, Harry had to try some quick and fancy footwork to re-interpret his own comments into what he really, really meant to say -- but by then, most had already seen it spill out of his own lips and there wasn't much room left for spin doctoring. The cat was out, and the Senate Democratic Majority Leader was on record with his true intent: to stop this damn war by declaring the first terrorist victory in the war against Global Jihad.

Since al Qaeda have been very clear -- if anybody is still listening to what they say -- that Iraq is their own main front in their war against everybody else (usually abbreviated to "crusader-Zionist forces"), they must have quite appreciated such a clear, unambiguous statement of capitulation from the leader of America's highest law-making body.

In some places, during certain periods of history, such behaviour would have been treason. But he supports the troops, so that's alright then!

The Democrat leaders all support, and have great faith in their troops now in harm's way defending a struggling Arab democracy against al Qaeda and its like-minded genocidists who want to come for you next. They all voted to give President Bush "Authorisation to Use Military Force" to overthrow the regime of Saddam in 2002. But patience isn't a virtue in this fast-paced modern age of instant stuff, like Pizza Pops and such. ("What do we want!!?" ... "Whatever!" ... "When do we want it!!?" ... "NOW!!!")

They support the troops alright, and will tell you that these magical beings can accomplish any mission -- except the one they currently have. "Indeed," they seem to say, "our service men and women are so wonderful that they don't even recognise their own defeat when it's right there in front of them, but instead cling to their mundane, every day experiences of making a positive difference for the beleaguered Iraqi civilians. That's why we progessives have to step in and compassionately tell the troops that they can come home now because it's over -- they failed, we lost, the job was too hard, the enemy too clever, but at least they tried -- and everybody who tries will get a gold sticker, because it's the trying that counts."

If that's the case Dems will get gold stickers for being losers, because that is exactly what they are endeavouring so valiantly to accomplish. When Dick Cheney came out to briefly rebut Sen. Reid's assertion of total defeat, Harry launched a blustering retort, castigating President Bush for sending out his "attack dog." Waaaaa...

These people all voted to support the AUMF back when the opinion polls also did. After more than 4 years of relentlessly negative media spin (every horror covered in graphic detail, every accomplishment buried or avoided), the polls don't anymore... and these politicians follow the winds with an eye not to success but to power.

Most (if not all) of these leaders also voted to confirm General David Petraeus as commander of MNF-I not so long ago -- and within days (before his feet even hit the ground there) they were demanding a "change of course" from the one they'd just sent him to implement. If we cast our minds back a little further yet, we'll remember the demands for "a new plan" and strident claims that there "aren't enough troops to do the job." When Bush engaged in consultations with all sides to review tactics, and with his top military leadership decided on an adjustment to strategy, new rules of engagement and reinforcements to secure the capital alongside an increasingly capable and professional Iraqi Army, the same people who had decried "not enough troops" suddenly changed tune to "unacceptable escalation of an unwinnable war." They are resolutely committed to defeat at any cost.

Gen. Petraeus had promised Congress that he would keep them updated on the evolving situation -- the progess, the setbacks, the good, bad and ugly. He was back in DC recently to do just that, but "leader" Pelosi found that she was just too busy to schedule any committee hearings, at which he might appear and testify about the situation in Iraq.

This, soon after she had plenty of time to fly to Damascus and hold meetings with the chinless dictator of that state sponsor of terrorism, against the wishes of her own country's State Department. Her main accomplishment was to deliver a "message" from Israel, which turned out to be completely different from what the Israeli leadership had told her. Oh, and also by bolstering the Syrian dictatorship, she became a heroic anti-Bush figure -- a "good American" -- in Syrian eyes. But at least she got to practice wearing a headscarf (it traps the emanations of temptation which are radiated from female hair, Allah be praised), and a lovely maple leaf motif it was indeed.

Poor Gen. Petraeus must have felt rather unappreciated, with all those important committees so busy trying to dig up old dirt on Bushco that they had no time to hear him, but he didn't show it. He organised ad hoc presentations for any congress critters who might be interested -- and for those too busy even for that (Pelosi and Murtha, for two), he held long conference phone consultations.

That didn't stop Grand Dad Simpson (already known for his deranged "redeploy over the horizon to Okinawa" strategy, and the "slow bleed to defeat" plan) from denouncing the highly regarded Petraeus on TV as a political "hack" who only talks to the media to spout Bush's lies on Bush's orders, rather than talking to Congress as he should. With such evident forgetfulness, senile dementia should not be ruled out.

Not content with having only one foot in his mouth, Harry Reid declared -- contrary to Petraeus' sober assessment of "modest progress" so far with the new tactics (though the reinforcements were only half deployed by that time), the dramatic shift in allegiance of Anbar tribal leaders against al Qaeda, and other positive indicators -- that there was no progress whatsoever, and if the General said there was, why he would simply disbelieve him!

Are we seeing a pattern here?

Hillary of course has been taking flack from the nutroots activists for her AUMF vote, because she refused to apologize for it. So she is now taking another tack. She can't change her vote, but she can change what she voted for! Her new plan is to have a resolution passed to turn the AUMF into a "sunset law." There would be no need for them to bite the bullet and do what they could do at any time to 'stop this damn war now!' -- which is to just turn off the money tap completely. That might look bad. Solution? Magically change this struggle for Iraq into something with an expiry date, retroactively. Iraq can be like a block of cheese -- once the expiry date has been reached, you throw it in the garbage and walk away. Brilliant!

In all this posturing and bluster, one can discern no plan whatsoever from the Democrats for succeeding in the struggle for Iraq, but there seem to be many plans for failing (as long as they can avoid the blame and reap the political payoff).

I'm often reminded lately of a recording I once had by a group of sample-mashers called Negativland. They'd taken a recording of a Korean war veteran (as I recall) describing the relentless propaganda blared over loudspeakers by the Norks and/or ChiComs, and looped it with sound effects and a vaguely musical background. "Give up! Give up! From 5 o'clock in the morning . . . till 10 o'clock at night! Give up! Give up! Communism is goooood! Chris-ti-an-it-y is stupid! Give up! Give up! From 5 o'clock in the morning . . . till 10 o'clock at night! Give up! Give up!" Just change 'Christianity' to 'Bush' and 'Communism' to 'anti-Bush' to make it current.

Not only are their prescriptions for actions (if any be found) certain to hasten the loss of Iraq to Global Jihad, they have nothing to say of what comes next. Their strategy is as simple-minded as: We stop this damned war, our brave men and women come home to live happily ever after, basking in the thanks of a grateful nation. And then what? The Iraqis can get back to hugging puppies under the gumdrop trees?

Or is it probable, if Iraq goes to Global Jihad forces, that it will become somewhat more messy? Will they bite their lip with as much sincerity as Bill Clinton did when the Rwanda massacres were going on? Will they bite down even harder, as Bill also did, when expressing their horror at the scale of carnage (after the fact) with a contrite, "We should have acted..."?

But that's all for the future. For now they're content to insist on presenting the al Qaeda with a firm date for unconditional departure. Bush promised to veto this, but they stood on principle. The principle that 'War is over, if you want it.' Global Jihad doesn't want it over yet, but no matter. Unilateral capitulation may convince them to take the path of peace, apparently. Veto sustained, it was back to the drawing board for Democratic leaders. They've come up with another version to fund the troops (who they support!) until July. The earliest feasible time to judge success or failure of the Baghdad security program will be in September (when Gen. Petraeus will make another attempt to brief congress). Slow bleed, baby.

These veterans at the recent 'Gathering of Eagles' in DC have it right.

B

ut if these Democrats get their way, and thereby force an actual al Qaeda victory in Iraq, it will have taken place without the jihadists having ever won a single battle. The message that will ring out across the world -- not only through the Arab world but from radical mosques in Londonistan, to the jungle jihad training camps of Southeast Asia, to the Hizb Allah now active in South America, to the terror cells operating in every western nation -- will be that Global Jihad is unstoppable. It will be taken as proof that the strongest weapon is "We love death." It will be taken as proof of the prophecy that the entire earth will submit to Islam.

If you think the war on Global Jihad has only encouraged terrorist recruitment, just wait until Iraq becomes Osama and Ayman's first Islamist Emirate.

Omar Fadhil, writing from Baghdad for PJM, is as puzzled as the rest of us. But he and his people have a lot more riding on it than we can ever contemplate:

Instead coming up with ideas to help the US Democrats are trying to stop the effort to stabilize Iraq and rescue the Middle East from a catastrophe.

I am an Iraqi. To me the possible consequences of this vote are terrifying. Just as we began to see signs of progress in my country the Democrats come and say, ‘Well, it’s not worth it.Time to leave’.

To the Democrats my life and the lives of twenty-five other million Iraqis are evidently not worth trying for. They shouldn’t expect us to be grateful for this.

I don't think Harry and Nancy and Hillary and Gramps want you to be grateful. They want you to shut up so it will be easier to forget about you when the real horror comes, so that we can all (in our comfortable, advanced societies) pretend not to notice the aftermath -- in the same way we carefully avoided noticing the million dead Vietnamese, the re-education labour camps, and more than two million dead Cambodians after "we" compassionately "ended" that one. Omar continues:

I understood that by winning a majority in the legislature the Democrats were supposed to guide America to victory by correcting the mistakes of the past. Obviously I was wrong; they have put all their efforts into making sure the exact opposite outcome happens.

Jeff Goldstein said it well in a single sentence. Of course, he can write way longer sentences than I can. Testify, brother:

Ironically, al Qaeda and its affiliates have become emboldened—but with the help of the delusional anti-war crowd, isolationist paleocons, and cynical, defeatist Democrats, who have decided to use troubles with the campaign in Iraq as a political wedge issue in order to regain power: given the opportunity to put up a united front against an enemy that has vowed to destroy us—using against us our short attention span, our propensity for self-flagellation, and a political culture that finds moral rectitude in dissent for dissent’s sake—the Democrats, after some wrangling within the party for control of the political narrative, have followed the (base) wishes of their “base” and have worked tirelessly, with the help of the advocacy media that props them up, to turn Bush into the villain of the Iraq war, a maneuver that has required them to ignore the wishes of the Iraqi people, pass legislation that would diminish trust in the US as a military force capable of protecting nations inclined toward reform, and give al-Qaeda the kind of propaganda victory on the world stage that they could never have achieved alone.

While the Bush-deranged keep pounding on old canards -- 'there were no WMD' (false), 'Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda' (false), 'Bush lied' (false), and so many more -- crucial parts of George Tenet's new tell-all book have been studiously ignored by the legacy media in favour of its more "gotcha" moments.

GEORGE TENET'S JUST released book, At the Center of the Storm, has created quite a stir. Over the past few days, a myriad of news accounts have referenced various snippets of the former director of Central Intelligence's self-serving collection of remembrances. But here is something you probably have not heard or read about Tenet's book: it confirms that there was a relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. And, according to Tenet, "there was more than enough evidence to give us real concern" about it too.

Read it all. There is no evidence that Saddam had a hand in Sept. 11. The media constantly conflates this into "There were no connections between Saddam and al Qaeda," which is hogwash. I've just finished reading a very detailed history of the Global Jihad movement (Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America by Yossef Bodansky). It's quite surprising to see how much was known of the connections and cooperation, not only with Saddam but with Iran and Sudan going back to the early 1990's. The book was published in 1999.

While I'm thinking of the most popular canards pushed at us daily, I note the recent anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" -- the conventional narrative of which is rivalled for silliness only by the famous 'plastic turkey' lie. Bush spoke on the deck of an aircraft carrier which had completed its mission and was about to head to home port. What did he actually say? One thing he didn't say, was "Mission accomplished." Don Surber remembers:

I wish Bush had said, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq."

I wish Bush had said, "We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."

I wish Bush said, "Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people."

Of course, that is exactly what President Bush said on May 1, 2003.

What can anyone do, when the generally accepted narrative (generally accepted because it's been continually pounded into them) is so at odds with facts? How many people really understand the despicable nature of the bloodthirsty brutes who blow up innocent civilians daily in the roads and markets of their cities? How many have heard of the girls' school being built near Baghdad, discovered to have built-in bombs with which to annihilate girl children who have the audacity (of hope!) to embrace their right to study. (Wai Allah) Not much notice among the Leftosphere, or other media (I think CNN played the story about twice). Too busy with more critical matters, like fired US attorneys, or something. Confederate Yankee suspects a virus may be to blame.

We have to stop ignoring what Global Jihad is saying. They are quite clear and open about their ideology and intentions. Ayman al Zawahiri released a new interview video in the last week or so, to buck up his troops. (Osama? Maybe he finally croaked from his kidney disease, who knows? Whether he's gone to the big whorehouse in the sky or not, the beat goes on.) LauraMansfield was first with the translation. Zawahiri was interviewed by 'As-Sahab,' a media subsidiary of al Qaeda Network. A few notable passages which stood out for me:

As-Sahab: The American Congress recently passed a bill which ties the funding of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq which ends next March. What is your comment on this resolution?

Zawahiri: This bill reflects American failure and frustration. However, this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap. We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing two hundred to three hundred thousand killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson which will motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system which produced their historic criminal Crusader/Zionist entity.

He knows the bill represented an attitude of failure and defeat by those who proposed it -- yet he doesn't support it! One of the only instances in this long interview in which he doesn't echo radical left talking points. He'd rather duke it out (er, have his minions duke it out) in Iraq until projected goals are reached. In four years he has reached about 1.1% of his target -- even less if we count only combat deaths and exclude vehicle accidents and other non combat casualties. At this rate he can declare mission accomplished in about 350 years' time.

AS: You talk of an American failure and an American predicament, but Bush says that his security plan has begun to bear fruit. What is your opinion?

Z: It bears its fruits in his pockets and the pockets of Halliburton.

Heh. Halliburton. This guy's plugged in -- probably on some of those "Action Alert!" mailing lists.

The interviewer raises the issue of the recent "accords" reached by Palestinian factions at their meetings in Mecca.

AS: But they (HAMAS) say that they are a moderate Islamic movement practicing politics, so what objection do you have to that?

Z: My brother: fie on moderation, politics, the presidency and the cabinet, and I thank Allah for the bounty of extremism, militancy and terrorism and everything else we are labeled with...

Normal Muslims will thank Allah for their children, the kindness of strangers, for bountiful harvest, and many other things. I know, I've listened to them do it. A normal Muslim doesn't thank Allah for terrorism.

AS: But they contend that this accord is the way out of spilling Palestinian blood.

Z: What does the preservation of Palestinian blood have to do with the abandonment and selling of Palestine and its interment in the tomb of oblivion? Palestinian blood must be sacrificed cheaply for the elevation of Allah's word and the liberation of Palestine.

Hear that, Palestinians? Your blood must be sacrificed cheaply. Not to mention the rest of us, of course.

On the way to "reform" the Arab peninsula, namely to strike "so that the ground erupts in flames under the feet of the Zionists and Crusaders in our countries and theirs and everywhere we are able to strike their interests...":

And from this, the critical importance of the Jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan becomes clear, because the defeat of the Crusaders there - soon, Allah permitting, will lead to the setting up of two Mujahid Emirates which will be launch pads for the liberation of the Islamic lands and the establishment of the Caliphate, with Allah's permission.

Pay attention, there might be a test at some point.

The interviewer cites his repeated quotations of al-Hajj Malik al-Shabaaz (Malcom X), and remarks that many Black Americans are fighting jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remarkably in this interview, Zawahiri quotes Malcom X more than he actually quotes the Koran (and he quotes the Koran a lot).

I am hurt when I find a black American fighting the Muslims under the American flag. Why is he fighting us when the racist Crusader regime in America is persecuting him like it persecutes us, and oppressing him like it oppresses us? And perhaps his slave ancestors whom America kidnapped from Africa were Muslims like us. The racist American Crusader regime is using him and the other weak and oppressed to die so that the criminals in the White House can amass their fortunes and add to their millions, whereas he receives scraps after his blood is spilled or he comes out of the war a cripple.

Straight out of International ANSWER or Code Pink. I'll bet he's on their mailing lists too.

And I hope no one replies to me by saying that blacks in America have been delivered from its tyranny because there are the likes of Colin Powell - the liar of the Security Council - and Condoleeza Rice in power. They are the ones who Malik al-Shabaaz (may Allah have mercy on him) described as house slaves, when he talked about the house slaves and the field slaves...

From here he quotes a long Malcom X rant on house slaves and field slaves, which Malcom winds up by declaring himself a field slave. Well, this formulation of Rice and Powell has been done before, by "radical progressive" cartoonists like Rall and other "edgy lefty" pundits. Plain vanilla Marxist class struggle rhetoric.

That's why I want blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world, to know that when we wage Jihad in Allah's path, we aren't waging Jihad to lift oppression from the Muslims only, we are waging Jihad to lift oppression from all of mankind, because Allah has ordered us never to accept oppression, whatever it may be.

Outreach program to the weak and oppressed of all the world, and especially to transnational progressivists who love this stuff. One man's terrorist ("I thank Allah for the bounty of extremism, militancy and terrorism") is another man's freedom fighter (for justice, universal health care, and all that other touchy-feely stuff). I love it that he included "people of color." I wonder what the Arabic phrase is for that.

And I tell the soldier of color in the American army that the racist Crusader regime kidnapped your ancestors to exploit them in developing its resources, and today it is using you for the same purpose, after they altered the look of the shackles and changed the type of chains and try to make you believe that you are fighting for democracy and the American dream.

What about the soldier of pallor?

And this is why I want every oppressed one on the face of the earth to know that our victory over America and the Crusader West - with Allah's permission - is a victory for them, because they shall be freed from the most powerful tyrannical force in the history of mankind. Isn't it the power which didn't suffice with what it stole and killed from the weak and oppressed, but went out and ruined for the entire world the atmosphere and climate with the gases emitted by its factories without caring about the disasters and catastrophes which will befall the poor states?

Globular Warmening! Can't leave that one out! Is he preaching to the mujahideen, or the disciples of Gorism? Both, I guess. Utopia is just around the corner, with Allah's permission.

And I'd just like to add a few words, which is that I call on all my brothers in Islamic Jihadi media to hone their resolve and sacrifice everything in their power, for they are a fundamental part of the Jihadi resistance in the face of the fiercest Crusade ever faced by the Ummah of Islam.

The media front is very important to these goons -- they know how to play it, understand what works for them, and have been very successful at steering the narrative.

A good look at the growing alliance between Global Jihad and the transnational radical left appeared a few days ago in the MEMRI Report in the New York Sun.

"Where else can you sit down in a single evening and listen to senior people from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, people from the revolutionary left and the antiwar movement from around the globe?"

— British Trotskyite John Rees at the Cairo Anti-War Conference, April 2007

Read it all. Then take a few minutes to watch three video clips that Allah (the other one) put together on Tony Blair's resignation announcement. Blair got it in 2001, and he still gets it today. All these speeches were delivered last year, and the segments posted at Hot Air bear close listening.

Thank you Tony, for being such a formidable champion of world civilisation and human values.

Like it or not, we (that means you) are at war. When war is declared on us (and you), there is no such thing as multiple options on the basic question, such as "Well OK, but only til the second Tuesday in August," or "I'll support civilisation as long as my party is in power" -- much less "I opt out." Global Jihad has opted you in, and its success is not an alternative to consider.
- posted by Agam @ 5:30 PM 0 comments

0 Comments:

Post a Comment