« Is Khaled Al-Masri Lying? | Main | Weblog Awards 2006: Nominations »

Comments

Yep. Great piece. And there's a companion piece by Walid Pheres that should be read with it.

Al Qaeda welcomes Democratic victory

The latest audio by al Qaeda's Iraq commander -- posted 48 hours after the midterm elections -- sends a clear signal to the readers of the jihadi strategic mind: Al Qaeda and its advisers around the world want to provoke an "American Madrid." Portraying the United States as a bleeding bull in disarray, the war room projects its wish to see America's will crippled. The video attempts to do the following:

American Democrats didn’t care about American slavery.
Wilson didn’t mind starving German youth.
Democrats didn’t care about the Ukraine
Democrats didn’t care about Poland and East Europe.
Democrats didn’t mind perpetual war and northern Korea being imprisoned and starved.
Democrats didn’t care about a million boat people, one out of three Cambodians dead or a whole people to the communist.
Enslaved Cuba, 90 miles from the coast doesn’t bother them.
Democrats where quiet happy with the Soviet Union.
Democrats love to abort babies even.

I don’t really see any obstacle to the Democrats selling the Iraqis down the river.

@ Carl Spackler

I'm afraid you could be correct. Many of them don't even accept the fact that there are islamic terrorists trying to destroy our way of life. After all, it's "Bush's so-called War on Terror", isn't it?

It is one of the best articles I've read lately. This is true realism, not the Realpolitik realism, which is basically one of the root causes of today's crisis.

This analysis is literally light years above the "Bush lied", "Where are the WMD's", "No blood for oil" etc arguments. And because it is so far above this level, many people will not be able to understand it. Just visualize for a second Cindy Sheehan or a Spiegel reader reading this article. They would read it with blank minds, throw it away and return into more familiar territory by shouting "Bu$Hitler lied"... That's all they can do and nothing more should be expected from them. They have reached their maximum potential for understanding this particular issue.

Remains to be seen what course will be taken by the ones in charge. I believe the confrontation with Islamists will grow in intensity in the next years, regardless of what America does in Iraq. The question is whether America wants to be able to influence events from the middle of the vortex, or if it wants to retreat and do that from a very disadvantageous outside position.

Democrats justly deserve tons of criticism but the list from Carl Spackler is wildly inaccurate. Truman, a Democrat, created his doctrine of resisting any further Soviet advance anywhere in the world, ie. Greece, Turkey, Korea and the Phillipines. And this was accomplished during the beginning of the Democrats almost 50 years of control of the Congress. The whole concept of the Cold War was begun and continued by the Democrats and Republicans alike during both Republican and Democratic presidencies.

Kennedy sponsored an invasion of Cuba to overthrow Castro and then later threatened the USSR with war while blockading Cuban ports. Kennedy, a Democrat, also began the first large scale escalation of American involvement in Viet Nam, vs the Viet Minh and the NVA, far in excess of what Eisenhower, a Republican, thought was prudent or in the best interests of the US. The policy of resisting communist aggression in SE Asia was continued by President Johnson with the assent of, again, a Democratic House and Senate. Johnson meanwhile sent troops into the Dominican Republic to overthrow the socialist Juan Bosch.

When Viet Nam and Cambodia collapsed the Democratic controlled Congress, with President Nixon and later President Ford, provided political refugee status to tens of thousands of people fleeing from the communists in SE Asia. Two of the largest ex-pat communities of Cambodians and Vietnamese, in the world, are with minutes of my location. They are here because both parties didn't turn their backs on their responsibilities to their allies.

Criticise someone for what they actually failed to do not what might have been wished.

They are here because both parties didn't turn their backs on their responsibilities to their allies.

Criticise someone for what they actually failed to do not what might have been wished.

****************************************************The Montagnards were our staunchest allies in Vietnam, when we pulled our troops out, and then cut off all aid to that country, while the Communist Bloc sent massive aid to the North there were some 3 million, there are now about 700 to 800 thousand left. That is what is called genocide.

Not the BS genocide label given to the Palestinians where about 800K have grown to 6 or 7 million?

but a population reduction of about 70%

Dan-Please note that I did say that the Democrats deserved much criticism. I was trying to point out the inaccuracies of the list. I certainly agree that the Congress, and mainly the Democrats, was criminally negligent in the treatment of the Montagnards, as well as the Hungarians, the Czechs, and the East Germans when those captive peoples tried to become free. But for most of the last 60 years our successes and failures have been bipartisan. However I do fear that the Democrats will not suffer much at all for abandoning the Iraqis just as they suffered little for abandoning the government of South Viet Nam. Many of those same Democrats, ie., Stark, Rangel, Waxman et al., from 1976 are still in office.

Democrats didn’t care about El Salvador, they loved the Sadalistas in Nicaragua. Right now Massachusetts Congressman Delahunt is almost gay married to Chavez, although Joe Kennedy is sending love notes. Did I mention Dhimmy Carter lap dancing with an Iranian act of war shoved down his throat? When Reagan put Pershings in Europe. I thought most lefties were going to pull a Jonestown. Draght!

If push came to shove in Greece, Turkey, the Democrats would of kissed them off too.
Yeah, Kennedy/Johnson ramped up Vietnam, but the Democrats bailed and the South Vietnamese disappeared under 14 divisions of T-60 tanks rolling down the costal highway. By the way, we had smart bombs by then and could have had the NVA, all ten that would have been left, walking north in a week. The NVA knew a weak horse when they saw one.

Anyways, Democrats bail, and every thug knows it. The fact that sometimes Democrats do right is a aberation. Scoop Jackson has been dead a long time.


Aside from the Iran-Contra investigation the Democrats during the period of Sandanista rule were inconsistent but never defunded the operation that was being run from El Salvador. Reagan put Pershings in Europe because a Democratic Congress approved the spending to build them. When push came to shove the administration under Truman and a Democratic Congress kept funding and clandestine aid going to Greece, Turkey and Iran during the 50's. While at the same time the Republicans under the leadership of Taft, Rockefeller and Vandenberg were calling for disengagement and retrenchment mainly because they were in opposition not from any kind of principle.

I certainly won't contest the disastrous denial of money and air support to the South Vietnamese during the 2nd NVA invasion. However the Republicans made the bet that the fall of Saigon would hurt the Democrats in the '76 and '78 elections which actually saw the increase in Democratic control of both houses and the later election of Jimmy Carter.

Plus the so-called weak horse that OBL might have referred to, the US, was led by a Republican president and a Republican controlled Congress in 2001. I can selfishly hope that the Democrats are replaced in '08 but I'm not comfortable with the idea that a catastrophe in the ME should be the cause.

Pat, if you'll remember the Iran-Contra was funded by arms sales to Iran specifically because the Dems were defunding the contras who were working out of El Salvador. That was Ollie North's job.

So what about the Repubs making the aformentioned bet? They weren't in control of congress and couldn't defund S. Vietnam. If they made the bet it was to say that that which was obvious would hurt the Dems. It didn't hurt them because Johnson's own party made him and the rest of his administration honorary Republicans, and the pubs were trying to be gentlemen about it and instead were actually idiots.

The weak horse was the pull out of the peacekeeping force that a Republican stopped controlling when he left office. Clinton was the CIC when the bodies were being dragged. And he made the pullout call.

Finally, Vietnam was lost 'in' the US because the 'ME' generation was getting a full head of steam at the time, and didn't want to put their lily white ass on the line for anything but their credit limit. The pols realized that and worked it for all it was worth.

I went onto active duty in the Navy in Mar '65. I felt unclean when we ran and numb when the Dems cut the funding.

Pat P "Dan-Please note that I did say that the Democrats deserved much criticism."

Yes, the deserve criticism for things in the past, but more importantly they deserve criticism for things in the here and now. Joe Leiberman is probably the LAST of the Truman/Kennedy Democrats, and his party threw him under the bus for an anti-war candidate.

The current run of Democrats CAN'T think beyond Vietnam. In some sad way, I think they might be trying to bring back the Glory Days of their youthful times as Vietnam protesters.

LC-I couldn't agree more. What's worse is that many of these Democrats think that many of these foreign policy issues were settled in their favor in 1976. They think that the last 20 years is a historical anomaly and that this election has restored the political zeitgiest to its natural order.

Most Democrats are unwilling and / or unable to face reality. And they put their own power and "defeating the evil Republicans" above their country. And yes, I'm saying that as a German. We know this kind of politicians because we have a lot of them. Maybe one could say that some Democrats are trying to "Europeanize" their party and - worse - their country. I very much hope they don't succeed.

Even from here in Germany it's possible to see what has become of the Democratic party. Many other Germans - those who rely on our media - still see it as the party of JFK (whom they like). Unfortunately, this party seems to have nearly ceased to exist. Their attitude towards Joe Lieberman is a shame, but typical.

Pat and Mir... agreed! :)

The idea of Democrats "Eurpoeanized" strikes me as true. It appears to me as well as to you, Mir, that they are working to try to get the "approval" of Old Europe. This is, of course, a critical error, since America is at its best when it is American ;). See Ronald Reagan's years.

Personally speaking, I have a massive problem with the pessimism I find among liberals in general. They always seem to be wringing their hands about whatever Cause du Jure. They never seem to be happy. That was what I dearly loved about Reagan... his endless optimism.

I recall a story that was told about Reagan. He used to tell a story about two brothers, one who was hopelessly pessimistic, the other persistently optimistic. Because they were at extreme ends, the father locked each into a room by himself. The pessimistic boy was locked in a room filled with every toy imaginable, and the optimistic boy was locked in a room filled with horse shit. The father decided that this might bring the pessimistic boy up a few pegs, and the optimistic boy down a few.

The next day, he checked on his two sons. In the room full of toys, the father found his pessimistic son crying. When he asked what was wrong, the boy said he was afraid to play with his toys because he might break them. When he checked in on the optimist, he found the boy gleefully digging through the piles of shit, as if it were Christmas morning.

"WHAT are you doing?" the father asked with horror.

The son looked at him full of joy and said, "With all this horseshit in here, there's GOT to be a pony in here somewhere!"

So, it was said that whenever a problem came up, Reagan would say to his staff, "Let's see if we can find the pony in this mess..."

That depicts what I loved so much about him :).

Occasionally, one should step back from ideological truisms, and take a cold, objective look at recent history to try to learn something from it. To begin, it would seem that our enemies were right. At this stage in their history, the American people really are gutless, lacking in will, and can be relied on to throw in the towel as soon as they are called on to make sacrifices in blood and treasure to defeat their enemies. We see the Andrew Sullivans, the Greg Djerejians, et. al., those who once shouted so loudly for war, now so invested in the cult of defeat that they will insist on it regardless of the facts on the ground. They have been chanting the "incompetence" mantra so long that, unless things are done precisely as these brilliant armchair generals recommend, whether it be chimerical schemes for sending over vast reinforcements, or whatever, they will bitterly and fanatically refuse to admit that the Iraq adventure can end in anything but defeat. The broad mass of the American people lack any perception of the significance of the struggle, and will gladly listen to those who glibly transmute abject defeat into "realism." Let's face it, my friends. There is a certain resemblance to Vietnam here. After all, some of us were there. Once again we see the same cowardly defeatism fobbed off as a noble cause. Once again we see anyone who dare to suggest that the situation doesn't really call for abject surrender shouted down as an imbecile and a viewer of the world through rose-colored glasses.

One can do one's best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, my friends, but these are the facts. What lessons should we learn from them? Perhaps, next time, we should read more closely General Powell's doctrine regarding exit strategies. Perhaps, next time, we should not even think of relying on the courage, will, or determination of the American people. In fact, "these colors do run." Just watch. Perhaps, next time, we should not even think of launching our military on another "nation building" adventure. We must come to grips with our limitations.

What can one say? It's just a good thing that the ideology that rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the demise of Communism was a backward, medieval throwback nourished by the good, old, religious fanaticism that, at least, anyone with some residual grey matter will treat with the contempt it deserves. Communism was a much worthier and dangerous foe. Don't believe me? Just read any political rag from the mid-30's, and see how many of the Andrew Sullivan's and Greg Djerejians of that day were listening to the Siren song of the Brave New World. They aren't nearly as likely to conclude that obscurantist religious fanaticism is the only way out of the "dead end" into which our evil capitalist system has led us. True, many of our modern "progressives" are twisting, turning, and contorting themselves ever so comically to find some way, any way, to justify their sympathy with this new "vanguard of the revolutionary masses," but it just won't play in Peoria, my friends.

In a word, it's a good thing that our foe is so abject, because we are doing our level best to hand them victory. We invite them into our societies in the name of "religious freedom," and "multi-culturism." If anyone has a problem with this, they are immediately shouted down as "Islamophobic." No doubt these people would have slept with Typhoid Mary, too, rather than be guilty of the sin of "discriminating" against her. After all, she was guilty of no sin for being the carrier of a fatal disease.

We will continue to progress, either rationally or catastrophically. Nature doesn't really care. The result will be the same. Humanity has survived the Christian theocracy of Innocent III in the past. It will also survive the Islamic theocracies of the present. The number of people who die in the process will be, as far as nature is concerned, a mere incident. Perhaps we shouldn't take it all so seriously.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31