Home > Why Does Al Qaeda Sound Like The DNC?
Wars and conflicts International Attack-Terrorism Governments USA
Why Does Al Qaeda Sound Like The DNC?
Reposted of noplannodirection
Al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has come out with a taped message for the world and America (just in time for our upcoming elections) which sounds just like DNC talking points:
“Can’t you [Bush] be honest at least once in your life, and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq,” al-Zawahri said in a portion of the video released by the Washington-based SITE Institute.
You know, I swear I have heard and read that claim before. Oh yes, I heard something similar from Howard Dean:
Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean rejected the criticism on Sunday and said, “The truth is, the president misled America when he sent us to war.” ...Dean said, “This is an administration that has a fundamental problem telling the truth.”
But I am certain I have heard this from others. Ah yes, John Kerry as he “reported for duty” at the DNC convention in 2004:
Sen. John Kerry challenged President Bush’s Iraq policy in blunt, biting terms Thursday night and promised cheering Democratic National Convention delegates, “I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war.”
And Kerry said it many times:
SEN. JOHN KERRY: The bottom line is that the president and his administration did mislead America into war.
Where else have we heard Zawahiri’s claim before. Ah yes, Senator Harry Reid:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to make sure the President Bush can’t mislead the nation on Iran the way Bush supposedly misled Americans on the situation in Iraq.
Zawahiri also claims America tortured Jihadists we have captured and interrogated
“Your agents in the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan have captured thousands of the youth and soldiers of Islam whom you made to taste at your hands and the hands of your agents various types of punishment and torture,”
Well, at least we did not behead them on TV for propaganda and then allow mobs to desecrate their bodies in the open streets. But I know I have heard this claim before. Again, Rep Nancy Pelosi:
“Tonight at long last, because of Congressman John Murtha’s leadership and persistence, the House finally went on record in favor of clear procedures for dealing with prisoners and against torture.
“Our troops were sent to war in Iraq without many of the essentials needed for their effectiveness and their safety, including a standard of conduct for the treatment of detainees. We have seen, to our great shame and regret, the consequences of this lack of clarity. At Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq, at Guantanamo, and in Afghanistan, allegations and evidence of detainee abuse have damaged the standing of the United States in the world.
“The United States has long been bound by international agreements prohibiting torture. That we even find it necessary to make the prohibition against torture more explicit is the result of the Bush Administration’s legal interpretation that these long-standing prohibitions apply only to persons on U.S. soil.
And of course we have Sen Ted Kennedy chiming in with Zawahiri:
None of us can forget the images from Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad that shocked our nation nearly two years ago and stained the United States in the eyes of the world. The American people suddenly realized an unpleasant truth - the cruel practice of torture had infected the ranks of the world’s finest military.
How about President Clinton joining Zawahiri’s chorus:
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton joined a chorus of critics of Bush administration proposals for the treatment of suspected terrorists, saying they would give broad approval to torture.
Shouldn’t the FEC look into whether Al Qaeda is giving in kind political donations to the Democrats for all these supporting claims? Even Al Jazeera has snippets of Bob Woodward’s book (or at least its conclusions) that Bush is hiding the full losses in the war in Iraq. I am wondering how many rabid posters at Huffington and KoS and DU are actually Al Qaeda supporters egging on our pool of useful idiots. Zawahiri’s rants are near copies of posts all over these lefty sites.
Any anti-war, liberal Democrat who complains about side-by-side comparisons between themselves and Al Qaeda have earned it this election cycle. It is beginning to be hard to tell the terrorists from the minority insurgents fighting the Bushitler regime.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?messageid=296656&showdate=9/30/06
Forum posts
30 September 2006, 22:55
With little reporting, and almost without media or governmental comment, the United States has suffered a substantial defeat in the war against radical Islam.
Three weeks ago, Pakistan signed the terms of the Waziristan Accord with the northern region of its country called North Waziristan. It was, effectively, the terms of surrender by Pakistan to the Taliban and al Qaeda, which dominate North Waziristan. Pakistan has negotiated a separate peace — the eternal danger to any wartime alliance.
With the exception of a superb article in the Weekly Standard by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and the redoubtable Bill Roggio and a few blogs, such as Flopping Aces, the Fourth Rail and the Belmont Club (apologies to some other blogs I surely have missed) there has been little comment. This column is based largely on the reporting from those sources.
The event itself was reported by the major newspapers, but the abject nature of the surrender passed with almost no comment. But surrender it was.
According to intelligence sources cited by the Fourth Rail and other sources above, the accord includes:
(1) Pakistan to abandon its garrisons in Waziristan,
(2) Pakistan military to not operate in or monitor actions in the region,
(3) Pakistan to turn over weapons to Waziris,
(4)Taliban and al Qaeda to set up a mujahideen council to administer region,
(5) region to be called "The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan,"
(6) unknown but substantial amount of money paid by Pakistan to the Taliban,
(7) al Qaeda and other jihadis to be allowed to stay in region,
(8) 2,500 foreign fighters linked to al Qaeda and Taliban released by Pakistan from their prisons (this fact also confirmed by London’s Daily Telegraph), and
(9) Taliban to refrain from violence in Pakistan only; the agreement does not stipulate refraining from violence in Afghanistan.
Moreover, according to intelligence sources, Pakistan is negotiating similar terms with agencies in the Khyber, Tank, Dera Ishmal Kahn and Bajaur regions of western Pakistan. If those negotiations are realized, the Taliban and al Qaeda will essentially have their own country again. With Waziristan they already have an excellent base of operations against our forces in Afghanistan.
According to an intelligence source cited in the Weekly Standard, the gains we have made in that part of the world in the past five years were "reversed in mere weeks with the loss of Waziristan and the release of 2,500 fighters."
But this is not really Pakistan’s fault. That country has probably suffered more than 3,000 troop fatalities in its attempt to subdue the region. And the British, during their centuries-long rule of the subcontinent, never subdued the region — sending unsuccessful punitive raids by their superb British-Indian army into Waziristan for almost a hundred years (right up to 1945.)
Nor can one blame Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose intelligence service is still partial to the Taliban (which it helped create), who has suffered two credible assassination attempts, and whose country has a violent and growing radical population.
I don’t have any basis for this, but I can’t help wondering whether Gen. Musharraf is planning to retire. His announcement at a joint press conference with President Bush of a book deal with Simon & Schuster and its serialization in Time magazine was beyond weird.
Not only is it rare for a sitting national leader (particularly in mid-crisis) to publish his memoirs, but what he says in them is in conflict with his fiercely held public position regarding the war on terror. Last year, I was personally and forcefully instructed by a senior Pakistani official that Pakistan is not helping us with our war on terror, they are voluntarily fighting their own war on terror.
And yet, Gen. Musharraf reports in his book that he was threatened with U.S. bombing if he didn’t become our ally — and he agreed to it only after calculating the consequences of crossing us.
Whatever is going on in Pakistan (and we must hope that the men who replace Gen. Musharraf sooner or later will not be more sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda, and will be at least as careful in controlling their nuclear weapons), our effort to stand up Afghanistan and suppress the Taliban and al Qaeda in the region has suddenly taken on an even more formidable dimension.
There are no ready solutions to the dilemma. With Pakistan now hors de combat, our already undermanned forces in Afghanistan will soon have to engage the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan — fighting some of the world’s most resourceful and cruel fighters in the most unforgiving lands on earth.
We ask a lot — and we get even more — from our brave and smart young warriors. But from Iraq to the Horn of Africa to Afghanistan and now to northern Pakistan, there is a limit to what our current number of active forces can possibly accomplish. And the list of danger spots will only grow in the coming years. Whether we like the fact or not, the ranks and lands (and confidence) of the enemy are growing. And they can’t be sweet talked out of taking the fight to America.
We must come to terms with reality — and soon. We are going to have to substantially increase the size of our Army and Marines to face the growing threats to our national security.
The president and his advisers are entitled to spend some time privately absorbing the implications of this reversal in Pakistan. But certainly no later than the State of the Union address, Mr. Bush must explain how this changes things and what he is going to do about it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed...041r_page2.htm
1 October 2006, 00:13
Perhaps the DNC sounds alot like Al-CIA-duh because they share adjoining offices in the bowels of the Pentagon, State Dept. etc. along with the Bush bootlicking NWO crowd? Hahahahahhh so much cheap wine and circus for the poor tired Sheeple!!!!
1 October 2006, 05:41
They share the same ideology: opression, murder and torture.