Apr 18 2008

al-Qaeda Leader Supports Democrat Views On Iraq

Published by at 10:59 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions,Iraq

It is not a good sign when the enemies of America are saying the same thing as Presidential candidates. It means the two see common cause. So what to make of Ayman Zawahiri’s claims the US has failed in Iraq:

Al Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri said in an audio message to mark five years since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that Washington’s war had brought nothing but failure and defeat.

“What the American invasion of Iraq has reached, today, after five years, is … failure and defeat,” Zawahri said in the tape posted on a website used by Islamist groups.

“The American troops, if they leave will lose everything and if they stay will bleed to death. This is what Bush has chosen for his army and his people, who elected him twice.”

How is this any different a claim than Hillary Clinton’s view of the war:

And it doesn’t help U.S. troops, whose morale has been boosted by the surge’s success, when Clinton announces, as she did again last week, that the Iraq war is “a war we cannot win.”

Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see Clinton and Zawahiri agree. Does Clinton also agree with Zawahiri that once we leave Iraq it will become a jihadist launching pad against Israel? Why is she proposing to do what Zawahiri wishes the most would happen? How is it Zawahiri and the Surrendercrats all see the same result in Iraq and strive to find failure in every news story and ignore all the progress that has been hard won? Why are Surrendercrats indistinguishable from al-Qaeda leaders without references to who is making the statements?

Update: Even Zawahiri notes a troop withdrawal, as proposed by Clinton and Obama, would be considered a defeat of America:

“This is a stupid drama to cover up the failure in Iraq and for Bush to escape from the decision of withdrawing his forces, which would be considered an announcement of the defeat of the Crusader invasion of Iraq, and to pass the problem to the next president,” Zawahri said.

Which is why the two democrat contenders are truly “Surrendercrats” – even al-Qaeda agrees that much.

16 responses so far

16 Responses to “al-Qaeda Leader Supports Democrat Views On Iraq”

  1. Soothsayer says:

    The Pentagon\’s military educational institute has called the Iraq war a \”major debacle\” whose outcome is \”in doubt\”:

    Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle. As of fall 2007, this conflict has cost the United States over 3,800 dead and over 28,000 wounded. Allied casualties accounted for another 300 dead . . . Operations in Iraq have diverted manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers from all other efforts in the war on terror and severely strained the U.S. armed forces . . . Compounding all of these problems, our efforts in Iraq were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East. . . for many analysts, despite obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a \’can\’t win.

    Written by Joseph Collins, former senior adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and published by the National Defense Institute\’s National Institute for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research center, the report delivers a scathing indictment from the key educational arm of the US Armed Forces.

    Thanks, George, Dick and Don, for a pathetically incompetent job.

  2. truthhard2take says:

    But Sooth, this makes the Pentagon al Qaeda sympathizers by Strata’s logic so it can’t be.

    But then, Iran’s leadership says pretty much the same thing about
    America’s debacle in Iraq–and “al Qaeda of Iraq,” which Strata
    insisted yesterday are following orders from bin Laden, have
    killed their sword enemy , the “non-Islamic” Shia , in droves, in
    Iraq.

    AJ of course prefers the alternative “staying and bleeding” option.

    All I say is some things are too obvious to miss.

  3. WWS says:

    aren’t you supposed to be whining about how “mean” the debate questions were? Must have been real hard for you to see your boy get spanked like that.

    As for the report you quote, you didn’t even read past the first paragraph, did you? Or did you read that far?

    Read that paper, and then pay attention to his references to his “facts”. He actually quotes Dana Milbank as “proof” that the US has lost stature, and that is his ONLY source for this claim.

    Dana Milbank??? Oh yeah, this is a SERIOUS military publication!!!

    And if you’re curious, for the rest of his broad claims he did no independant research and added no new info. He simply links to and quotes the much-discussed 2007 NIE report, which since it took time to put together is today nearly 18 months out of sync with what’s happening on the ground.

    He does have a nice rundown of the bad decisions that characterized the original occupation, but these are all conclusions that Petraus and everyone else agrees with – old news in other words. After that, it’s primarily a bunch of bureaucratic boilerplate that no one but the author’s students will wade all the way through. Who but a truly dedicated bureaucrat, after all, would use the phrase “Operationalize the State Dep’t and USAID” as a major theme of his recomendations?

    “Operationalize”??

    So why write this? Professors gotta publish, even at the NDU. It’s unoriginal, weak, and full of bureaucratize (but I repeat myself) , but at least he can consider his ticket punched for this cycle.

    the link in your post was bad, THIS is the proper link:

    http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf

  4. VinceP1974 says:

    But Sooth, this makes the Pentagon al Qaeda sympathizers by Strata’s logic so it can’t be.

    What makes you think there aren’t Al Qaeda sympathizers at the Pentagon?

    You’re a fool if you dont think we’re extensively inflitrated

  5. missy1 says:

    Small Wars Journal smelled a rat and went directly to Joseph Collins, unfortunately the story put forward by the above is all over the net, here’s what Collins has to say to correct the Miami Herald:

    The Miami Herald piece on a NDU “occasional paper” (Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath), quoted alternately as a Pentagon or NDU study, raised some flags here at SWJ. So we asked the author, Joseph Collins, to provide some context. His reply:

    The Miami Herald story (“Pentagon Study: War is a ‘Debacle’ “) distorts the nature of and intent of my personal research project. It was not an NDU study, nor was it a Pentagon study. Indeed, the implication of the Herald story was that this study was mostly about current events. Such is not the case. It was mainly about the period 2002-04. The story also hypes a number of paragraphs, many of which are quoted out of context. The study does not “lay much of the blame” on Secretary Rumsfeld for problems in the conduct of the war, nor does it say that he “bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” It does not single out “Condoleeza Rice and Stephen Hadley” for criticism.

    http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/04/pentagon-study-current-events/

  6. ivehadit says:

    Good work Missy!

  7. missy1 says:

    BTW, easy to see why the Strata-Sphere hijackers are at it again. It turns my stomach to see that the Democrats and Zawahiri constantly agree with one another.

    Back to the topic:

    al-Qaeda Leader Supports Democrat Views On Iraq

    It is not a good sign when the enemies of America are saying the same thing as Presidential candidates. It means the two see common cause. So what to make of Ayman Zawahiri’s claims the US has failed in Iraq:

  8. truthhard2take says:

    Vince outdoes Robert Welch.

    At least Welch had actual scattered Marxist intellectuals who wished to live under a Soviet system to worry about, almost all of European
    extraction with Marxism being a Western European heresy. Vincey wants us to believe there are “extensive” numbers of secret American
    Muslims in the Pentagon and all shades of American society working to establish an international caliphate.

    In other words, Vince is a kook.

  9. Cobalt Shiva says:

    Vincey wants us to believe there are “extensive” numbers of secret American Muslims in the Pentagon and all shades of American society working to establish an international caliphate.

    John Walker was not ideologically motivated, but he gave the late and unlamented USSR the ability to read most American military communications traffic in real time. His motive was greed. And, considering how long he spied and how much money he got paid, he practically gave the stuff away.

    There are many folks in Washington who are not averse to “supplementing” their income by means of advocating this or that course of action in the course of their work. Espionage and covert influence peddling are some of the most difficult charges to prove unless either (a) a defector comes in and gives enough data to provide reasonable suspicion or (b) the spy/unregistered foreign agent is really, really, stupid.

  10. VinceP1974 says:

    In other words, Vince is a kook.

    Thank goodness. I’d hate to be considered normal by you.

  11. WWS says:

    Touche’, Vince. The idea of T2T labeling *anyone* a “kook” is probably one of the funniest things I’ve seen here.

  12. truthhard2take says:

    Cobalt

    Agreed. Now do you agree much of the American Empire’s
    “Cold Warring” against the Soviet was based on a similar impulse?

  13. 75 says:

    Now you’ve done it Cobalt….an agreement from Truthy. I think I’d rather have an STD. 😉

  14. truthhard2take says:

    You sound too timid, furtive, and nondescript to do anything risking one.

  15. 75 says:

    For once, Truthy, I think I can actually take you at your word for once…being the expet in STD’s that is.

  16. 75 says:

    …”expert…that is”