Nov 22 2006
Al Qaeda Revels In Democrat Election Win
Al Qaeda is very happy with their propoganda success with the help of liberal democrats and the liberal media in the last US elections. I have said this many times but now regional experts have looked over publicized statements and videos from Al Qaeda and provide insight into Al Qaeda’s cheer:
1. Convince the jihadists that the United States is now defeated in Iraq and beyond. While no reversal of the balance of power has taken place on the ground, the jihadi propaganda machine is linking the shift in domestic politics to a withdrawal from Iraq.
…
2. Spread political chaos at home. Jihadists portray the Democratic takeover of Congress and the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (and maybe others) as signs of American weakening in the resolve to fight jihadism.
…
3. The terminology used in the videotape is a powerful indicator that al Qaeda’s political network relies on Western-educated minds, familiar with political processes in the United States and serving as advisers to the jihadists. A regular al Qaeda emir does not use the term “lame duck.” It is more likely that a U.S.-based cadre, who understands the impact of political jargon on domestic audiences, had suggested the use of this word.
Al Qaeda is moving to out on many fronts. I cannot link to the report at Stratfor, but Al Qaeda has announced an alliance of groups that span north Africa from Algiers to Libya. We know they operate in alliance with the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And it is clear they have operations in Turkey. So Al Qaeda is deployed and ready to take over the Middle East and North Africa – which includes most of the world’s oil supplies. The liberal Democrats and news media never believed in Al Qaeda and Islamo Fascism. They always had their heads in a fantasy world (one in which they are all-seeing of course). So they were likely oblivious to what they were doing by calling for retreat in Iraq. What worries me more are the ones who knew exactly what the stakes were. I think the head of Hezbollah said it best:
Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah declared: “The Americans are leaving, and their allies will pay the price.”
It doesn’t matter so much what nuances we think about, what really matters is whether the election reinvigorated the Jihadist or not. And it did.
In the Salafis chat rooms, the commissaries explained to their audiences, that the Democratic Party victory in Congress means that America is now divided and al Qaeda can push to create more cracks in the system — as it has successfully done in Spain. The masters of the forum, emulating al Masri’s audiotape, said not only that “we got their soldiers on the run in Iraq,” but “we got their citizens on the run on their own soil” referring to the November electoral outcome.
The one result the Dems and Liberal media explained was that the election could make things much worse – not better. No one in the media allowed a cold look at the downside of electing Democrats who cried for surrender to Al Qaeda. I know surrender was not the intent – but an open debate would have allowed that message to come through. The media, again, has done this country a major diservice. Now the left keeps trying to say that we cannot pull out, the election is over and we need to be serious. Sadly, the time to be serious was prior to the election and being honest about the stakes.
24 Responses to “Al Qaeda Revels In Democrat Election Win”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
First Cup 11.22.06…
……
Again I can only chuckle cynically. It would indeed have been nice to have had something to discuss before the election other than Foley and the “macaca” incident. Now we’re stuck with a party who figured they had to cry “cut and run” to get elected and “stay the course” to stay elected.
I guess President Bush did his job too well, and allowed the nation to believe that there was no war and no implacable enemy out there. I suspect things will change now. I keep thinking of John Kerry and how he was said to be frozen in place, unable to respond, for a full thirty minutes on 9/11, while President Bush took seven and a half minutes to finish reading to schoolchildren while the Secret Service figured out where to take the President.
We Got Their Citizens On The Run On Their Own Soil…
I named this post after the quote from one of the terrorists for the simple reason that this quote should send chills down your spine. Will the Democrats now understand that running from a fight only emboldens the enemy? Will they understand that sin…
Nothing like a failed war propelled by lies to strengthen an enemy
and weaken the perpetrators.
I am beginning to think that Ken and his friends and allies the terrorists are going to be disappointed. I have a feeling they forgot that Bush is still the president and a lot of these Democrats are getting a lot more nuanced now that they won the election.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/473728p-398546c.html
Back to reality. Bush has turned pro-America, mild, moderate Abu Dhabi against us.
Actually, Ken, the war was quite successful. What we have so far is a failure of a new government to assert itself. Part of that is because every single government institution was scrapped and rebuilt from scratch with people having no experiance in those functions.
What we ARE seeing is a major shift in the Sunni tribes in Anbar away from the insurgents and toward the government. In particular is the tribal rejection of al Qaida.
The current Iraqi government has only been in existance since May. I would guess they need more than 6 months to get the job done.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_11/010269.php
a new poll of Iraqis shows vast majorities of Sunnis and Shias want us to leave, & believe we are causing, not curing the violence,generally.
this despite the fact they don’t like al Qaeda–and the majority also approve of attacks on US troops.
how many are capable of penetrating Strata’s misleading focus on al Qaeda, then, in this no-win war?
Of course they want us to leave, Ken, eventually. Just as we want to leave eventually.
Gee, they probably find it as hard to agree on domestic politics as we do.
So what you see in Sunni regions is growing support, not the opposite as your posting would lead you to believe. Also, opinions change. Check again in another 6 months and they will be different stiff. But overall when both Iraqis and Americans are asked if they want troops there forever, of course the answer is “no”. We want to see an Iraqi government that is able to maintain order and have the support of the people. It is just going to take them more than 6 months to do that. It took us over a decade to do that in our own country and our original goverment under the Articles of Confederation had to be scrapped. Part of the reason for that was because of insurgents like Shay. These things take more than weeks or months, Ken.
Crosspatch is right, Bush is still the President and he has enough votes in the Senate to block just about anything that he doesn’t want to go through. He also has two competing competing reports to the Baker commission – one from the Pentagon and one from the NSA…which will allow him to pick the points he wants from each report and move forward.
And there is definitely something else brewing with the assasination in Lebanon….maybe that has more to do with Bush’s visit to Jordan then just Iraq. Iran and Syria (and the Hezbos) are planning a move because they think we are tied up by the Dems in the Congress. I think AJ is right, the terrorists will try to force the Dems hand not realizing the Dems have limited power….which is why they are beginning to backtrack on their promises to the far left fringe.
We’ll find out soon I’m afraid…
BTW…I cannot understand why anyone pays attention to Ken – I don’t.
“I cannot understand why anyone pays attention to Ken”
Because he provides an excellent opportunity to post more good news.
As usual you blind yourselves to the pivotal stats which put the
balance into perspective…and of course, stymie your utopian
Strata-ite dreams. I refer to the significant approval of attacks on US troops combined with the opinion they are hurting more than helping. Get the hint?
Crosspatch
Actually, Ken, the war was quite successful. What we have so far is a failure of a new government to assert itself.
Actually Crossed-up, you’re wrong two ways. The war “is” not
“was” because your dear leader refused to believe a guerilla war
would fold off the conventional war and did not prepare for it.
Secondly, if (for the purposes of using your argument) the new
government is a failure this means Bush’s vaunted US-administered
“democratic induction” of Iraq was also a failure.
As for “more than six months” US “trainers” concede in a
Washington Post article yesterday the Iraqi troops are
“years away” from minimal training success.
If you believe a 31% war support among Americans is enough
to sustain the years required, you’re as delusional as AJ.
” every single government institution was scrapped and rebuilt from scratch with people having no experiance in those functions.” -Crosspatch
Indeed!
And the MSM credits no one for this monumental achievement.
Ken,
You slime Bush for his “utopian” dreams. If your views prevailed, an untimely withdrawal would create a “dystopia,” resulting in unknown amounts of bloodshed, refugees, terrorist motivation and loss of all American credibility.
Macker fails to grasp the “governmental institutions” are not
functioning. In fact a hundred of one of them still are missing from a kidnapping. America has no credibility in the Middle East, had little before the invasion.
Macker, excuse me, I misposted. Should read “no credibility in the Middle East, except with Israel.”
Apparently pointing out to Ken that our own original government (1777) had to be scrapped and redesigned in 1787 has no effect whatever on his, um, I’ll call them “speeches.”
Not that I care too much because he comes off as positively smug about the problems we’re having in Iraq and apparently wants us to lose the fight and is willing to paint the picture as bleakly as possible to convince us that we’re in over our lazy uneducated heads in Iraq.
Aitch
You’re a Strata-ite alright,disconnected with reality and bent on exonerating America’s essential immoral side bared for all the world to see in the Iraq War. If I didn’t come off “smug” on these
matters, I’d come off angry enough for Strata to have an excuse to
ban me.
Between 1777 and 1787 ,the US government’s “scrapping and redesigning” was not replete with warring and bloodshed between the branches of said government, not replete with private militas
accompanying the “scrapped and redesigned” structures,said
militias carrying out wholesale slaughter of their rivals.
Nor were the “scrapped and redesigned” governments trapped in a
Green Zone, surrounded by bloodshed they were both incapable
of stopping and frequently victimed by-when members of which
governments were not themselves complicit in the bloodshed.
See the diff, Aitchie?
“Aitchie”? What are you, thirteen?
And my point was that if it took us Americans a full decade just to get our own government right, AND if we and the Iraqis are trying to set up a government in Iraq, you would imagine that it would take LONGER, all else being equal. In other words, three and a half years isn’t enough time to get everything in place so that we can just walk out on the Iraqis and trust that they’ll be organized enough to fend off the insurgents on their own (the insurgents who are targeting Iraqi civilians with fully as much enthusiasm as they are targeting U.S. soldiers).
Proud to be a Strata-ite. Strata-ites unite!
Ken, the levels of “bloodshed” in Iraq is probably the lowest of any major conflict the world has seen. I believe it took over 5 years after the German surrender for the murders and political assasinations to finally stop after WWII. There was a major difference there, though, as we removed the leaders of the regime but left the rank and file party members in their positions and rebuilt the existing government institutions so things were a little faster to get rolling.
In this case a country that has been under a dictatorship for a much longer period than Germany was has been restarted from scratch without any of the former regime rank and file party members. This means that every position in every institution is filled with someone who has never done it before at the same time these same people are attempting to create regulations, procedures, etc. In other words, it is probably going to take longer in Iraq than the 5 years it took in Germany.
There is another part of the “immediate withdrawal” problem that is never addressed by people who should know better. The current Iraqi army that is being created is pretty much only the “teeth” units. Even when that task is completed, they still don’t have the support structure required to maintain those units. In the meantine, US training units, transportation units, engineer units, supply units, etc. are providing that support structure. So while numbers of US troops might be unchanged, nobody is looking at the change of structure of those troops.
Getting the Iraqi army combat units trained and up to strength is actually the EASY part of the task. Getting them to a point where they can feed themselves, train themselves, move themselves around, build their own compounds, etc. takes longer and involves a lot more training. Nobody in any position of authority in the Iraqi system has more than 3 years of experiance. How do you provide senior staff officers that are skilled in logistics and intelligence with only 3 years worth of experiance? You can’t. It takes much longer than that.
People like Ken have unreasonable expectations because they don’t understand the scope of the problem. You can’t just pull out and leave because whilke you might have an Iraqi army division that is ready to fight, you don’t have the units to get food, ammunition, and supplies to them or mechanisms to procure those items and get them distributed to depots so they can be sent out to those units. Running a military is a lot larger job than just fielding a mob with guns.
“Will the Democrats now understand that running from a fight only emboldens the enemy?”
They understand it all too well, hun.
The Democratic party, their nutroots like trollboi Ken and their propaganda wing the MSM want us to lose. They are firmly on the side of the Islamofascists.
They may have a “road to Damascus” moment right before they die in the next attack on the US by their Islamofascist heroes, though. But by then it will be too late.
Thank God (small favors) Strata has not yet posted on the single
worst attack by the insurgency since the US invasion. Yesterday in Sadr City. Why the silence AJ-more concern for the unattached fetus than for Iraqi life?
Strata undoubtedly would tell you “worse is better” with his
typical amoral disregard for the lives of Iraqis which today, al Sadr
correctly blamed on the US troops (whose responsibility under Geneva is to keep attacks like these from happening and has utterly failed since the invasion) and, as of my last reading, the young
clerical nationalist has now vowed to leave the government if Maliki
follows through with his meeting with Bush next week.
Strata, in his amoral haze, will doubtless read such a government departure as somehow a victory for Bush and American strategy.
But when the US leaves in ignominious disgrace, with an anti-American government in place,how will AJ spin that?
Crosspatch
If you hadn’t noticed, Baghdad is under seige from both the insurgency and bloody attrition from death squads,kidnappings for ransom a rape epidemic and the flight of huge numbers of professionals to other countries. Only an escapist would compare
Baghdad to post-war Berlin.
As for training, we weren’t training enemies after the war in Germany.
We are training anti-American members of militias in Iraq.