Former counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke recently suggested that al Qaeda may be trying to influence the outcome of the upcoming presidential elections. After describing al Qaeda’s recent attacks in the Middle East (Yemen, Pakistan), Clarke stated that these strikes may have been primarily geared at aggrandizing al-Qaeda’s capabilities via the media.
He then concluded that “Even more likely is the possibility that al Qaeda would hope the [“media-amplified”] attack would benefit John McCain. Opinion polls, which, as noted above, al Qaeda reads closely, suggest that an attack would help McCain. Polls in Europe and the Middle East also suggest an overwhelming popular support there for Barack Obama. Al Qaeda would not like it if there were a popular American president again.”
Clarke does not, however, explain why it is that al-Qaeda eschews a “popular president” or what that even means. Nor does he explain why al-Qaeda would want McCain, of the two candidates, the one who has been more forthright about associating Islamic ideology with al-Qaeda.
Moreover, the recent attacks in Yemen and Pakistan reveal very little: Islamist organizations have been attacking “apostate” governments from the beginning, well before 9/11; there is no reason to tie these events to American elections and certainly not see them as benefiting McCain.
That said, there is plenty of evidence that al-Qaeda has long been interested in influencing the outcome of American elections. Their primary method is propaganda -- those many chastising al-Jazeera communiqués by Osama bin Laden and his Second Ayman Zawahiri that have become mainstays over the years. The most obvious example is when a long bin Laden video surfaced days before the 2004 presidential election (Bush and Kerry).
Then, bin Laden repeatedly portrayed the Bush party as war-mongering racists (Bin Laden once even managed to sneak in a remark about the treatment of the American natives at the hands of the white man, and Malcolm X-quoting Zawahiri the treatment of his “black brothers” in America). Bin Laden further depicted Bush Sr as a wanna-be “monarch,” who established his sons on “thrones,” and was responsible for “the mass slaughter of [Muslim] children.”
Bush Jr was portrayed as being “blinded by the black-gold [oil],” which he killed “millions of children in Iraq” for. Bin Laden even managed to mock Bush for the now infamous anecdote -- thanks to Michael Moore -- concerning the president reading a goat-story to children when the strikes of 9/11 commenced.
Bin Laden concluded by saying that peace and security do not revolve around presidential candidates, but are rather in the hands of the people. But he also knew that the people’s will is made manifest in the president they elect. In other words, by mercilessly bashing Bush, his father, and his party, with nary a word about Kerry, he simultaneously implied that, if anyone, only the latter has a chance of ushering in peace and security.
More interestingly, in this same pre-2004 election harangue, bin Laden voiced no complaints or grievances concerning the eight year interval separating the father from the son -- the “Clinton era” -- further fueling the notion that the liberal clintonesque Democrats, ever celebrating diversity, tolerance, and equality, will set the world to right.
At any rate, it is important to note that bin Laden’s pre-2004 election message offered nothing new, simply that long list of endless, ever-morphing grievances, with the usual assertion that if only Americans would vote for someone who ameliorates these grievances -- not another “war mongerer” -- the war would end.
It should be clear by now (see the AQ documents in The Al Qaeda Reader) that the “grievance-mantra” is simply a smokescreen for a much more existential animus that has little to do with America’s temporal actions. In other words, all foreign policy aside, bin Laden has made it perfectly clear that nothing less than submission to Islam, what Islamic law demands, will ever guarantee peace between the West and al-Qaedist radicals. Al-Qaeda has repeatedly stated this in their clandestine writings to Muslims.
Even so, being utterly incapable of understanding theological doctrines and motivations, let alone apparently even appreciating textual evidence, the Left seems to still be convinced that the root problem is foreign policy, and that the solution is appeasement and concessions. Ex-Cia analyst Michael Scheuer, for instance, not only willfully chooses to ignore the blatant evidence contained in The Al Qaeda Reader concerning that organization’s ultimate motivations, but he dismisses it, that is, their own words, as a “neo-con” ploy -- perpetrated by yours truly -- while continuing to characterize bin Laden as, at once, Robin Hood, St. Francis of Assisi, and Thomas Jefferson.
Al-Qaeda and Islamists in general know and rely on such unbridled Western liberal guilt. Indeed, it is not implausible to say that, based on history -- from Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton -- al-Qaeda has reasoned that it is always best to have a Democrat in office, someone who, while not taking radical Islam seriously, that is, not appreciating its metaphysical components, will try to appease by making “physical” concessions. And above all, someone who will not wage an offensive war against the terrorists, thereby giving al-Qaeda types worldwide that one thing they desperately need: Time. Time to regroup; time for the Western economy to falter (“We will bleed you like we did Russia”); time for Muslim nations to grow stronger, possibly acquiring nukes. Time to resurrect the caliphate.
Based on all this, what can one expect from al-Qaeda in regard to the upcoming presidential elections?
For starters, it must be understood that al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attack, followed by their many grievance-filled communiqués -- which have only received more credence by the liberal Left’s assent -- have already taken a toll on American society, mostly by making widespread the notion that “more of the same,” that is, another Republican WASP president, will only lead to more of the same strife and terrorism. Hence that profound Democrat slogan: “Change.”
This may be precisely what al-Qaeda hoped for with the 9/11 strikes -- to convince Americans that Muslims are really angry, and to reinforce this fact with a barrage of indoctrinating communiqués insisting that this anger is entirely related to US foreign policy. Thus the need for “change,” the need to break away from Bush and his party, a popular if unconscious position that an increasing number of Americans from across the political divide seem to be taking. And while al-Qaeda may have planted this seed, the Left has run with it.
Enter Barack Hussein Obama, the ultimate representation of change, literally and figuratively: not only is he a liberal Democrat (i.e., “tolerant,” “peace-minded,” even “enlightened”); he is black (i.e., understands what it means to be a minority, to be the “other”); and his name is Barack Hussein Obama (i.e., as opposed to yet another George or John -- very Christian names -- he has a decidedly Arab/Muslim name that will surely endear Muslims to America). Who better to make peace with the rest of the, especially Muslim, world? Who better to make them like us?
This notion was most recently articulated by Jesse Jackson who “promised ‘fundamental changes’ in US foreign policy [if Obama wins], saying America must ‘heal wounds’ it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the ‘arrogance of the Bush administration.’’’ Concluded Jackson: “Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims. Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith.”
Lest anyone assume that al-Qaeda is not sophisticated enough to connive such a feat of reverse psychology to their benefit, the Madrid bombings of 2004 should be recalled: three days before Spain’s general elections, explosions in Madrid commuter trains planted by al-Qaeda operatives killed 191 people and injured approximately 1,460.Three days later, Jose Zapatero and his ultra-liberal Socialist party won the election. There is good reason to believe that the Socialist party received a big boost in votes precisely because of the Madrid bombings, as many people were convinced the attack came in response to their involvement in Iraq.
The very day after winning the elections, Zapatero promised to withdraw Spain’s 1,300 troops from Iraq, saying, “The war [in Iraq] has been a disaster [and] the occupation continues to be a disaster. It has only generated violence.” One month later the last of Spain’s troops left Iraq. Bin laden must have been delighted, evinced by the fact that he often indicated this Spanish response as a step in the right direction. More telling is the fact that the first question Jamal Zougam (one of the arrested suspects of the Madrid bombings) asked upon arriving at the Courthouse on 15 March 2004: "Who won the election?' He must've been pleased to know that the terrorist attack achieved the desired result.
Yet while bin Laden’s 2004 “political campaigning” worked in Spain, it failed in the US. (After all, Kerry -- not to mention Obama’s running mates -- were all white.) Will al-Qaeda try again to influence this year’s elections? It may well have reasoned that it’s not necessary; the leftist media has already done the job.
Bottom line: without 9/11, the meteoric rise of Senator Obama would have been inconceivable. In this sense, then, Osama paved the way for Obama.
OT - I was expecting to see a thread by RS concerning his appearance last night at his alma mater, UNC Chapel Hill.
How'd it go, Mr. Spencer?
People - here is the Daily Tar Heel link for the article written about RS at UNC last night. It's called "author speaks about jihad.":
http://www.dailytarheel.com/news/university/author_speaks_about_jihad
"Bottom line: without 9/11, the meteoric rise of Senator Obama would have been inconceivable. In this sense, then, Osama paved the way for Obama."
It always fascinated me that almost all Muslim leaders want Obama to win.
Sound of alarm bells? Seems like it to me.
There are lots of other alarm bells also.
What is it that Barack Obama knows that the rest of us don’t?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5682
Obama is not a Muslim, but he is a dhimmi. The jihadis like dhimmis, they don't like Westerners who are aware of the jihad.
I'm surprised bin Laden isn't a McCain supporter. He and his al Qaeda troglodytes would surely benefit by having a more war-like president in the White House.
Any up-swing in U.S. military action could be trumpeted as an escalation of the "War on Islam." He could rally more support, and gain more influence, with every action by the "Crusaders."
It always seemed as if his ambition was to set the world on fire in a free-for-all Islam vs. Everybody Else battle.
How else is the Mahdi going to return?
At any rate, it is important to note that bin Laden’s pre-2004 election message offered nothing new, simply that long list of endless, ever-morphing grievances, with the usual assertion that if only Americans would vote for someone who ameliorates these grievances -- not another “war mongerer” -- the war would end.
The first Gulf War was followed up by the election of a dove who devoted eight years to solving (or so he thought) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the same years that Arafat was being coddled and the Israelis pressured to give in and let terrorists take over the West Bank and Gaza, al Qaeda grew in strength and influence. Arafat's parting gift to Clinton was rejection of all efforts and the start of a new intifada. Al Qaeda's parting gift was the bombing of a navy ship. As Clinton left office, there were Egyptians at flight schools in the US planning the 9/11 attack.
If Democrats think Obama will resurrect the Clinton years, they should be careful what they wish for.
"I'm surprised bin Laden isn't a McCain supporter. He and his al Qaeda troglodytes would surely benefit by having a more war-like president in the White House."
give me doughnuts,
Yes and no. Al Qaeda might be gaining adherents but bin Laden is living in the shadows. As much as they glorify suicide attacks on infidels, note how the al qaeda leadership doesn't stoop to such behavior. They don't want to worry about where they can move to. Where they once trained openly in terrorist camps in Afghanistan, today they are on the move. Internet usage isn't as open as it was in the 90s. No satellite phones that can be traced.
Wouldn't an Obama victory be spun as an al Qaeda victory? (See, the Americans are so afraid of us they will do whatever we tell them! Let's turn up the heat on them!)
First of all, the idea that Al Qaeda supports McCain's election is nonsensical. This is simply a calculated piece of propaganda from the liberal Richard Clark designed to turn the "security quotient" - Obama's deficit on national security issues - on its head.
Secondly, Raymond overlooks the most important moment in Bin Ladin's 2004 attempt to influence the elections in America, when the Al Qaeda leader said (not verbatim):
"Those states that oppose Bush will be safe from attack; those that support him will not be..."
This blatant attempt to influence the vote by intimidating the electorate was spun by the media as something entirely different; the word "state" was meant to imply "country"...and that therefore, this was just one more of many attempts by Al Qaeda to decouple America from its allies.
But the spin didn't work, the American public rejected the attempted meddling in US affairs and re-electing Bush. This is when the venerable Walter Cronkite made his ridiculous assertion that Bin Ladin's video was somehow manufactured by Carl Rove.
Obama became possible the minute we invaded Iraq. We spent a fortune, wasted valuable time, ignored the root causes of the overall conflict, and than ended up looking like hypocrites (not to mention hurting ourselves) by continuing to support Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, who are two of the biggest supporters of jihad on this planet.
Remember several ago I kept quoting that line from the Art of War by Sun Tzu…
From beginning of Waging War, Chapter II…
“When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.”
“Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.”
Our treasure is spent, because our economy sucks right now. Other chieftains have sprung up, Iran for example, to take advantage of our extremities. Nothing will be done about their nuke program by Bush, or anyone else for that matter, until it is too late. Another is the leftist media, and academics who have used this chance to cement their power. Last, we have “consequences that must ensue”, and that is Obama. Look what Iraq has cost us! It cost the Republicans congress, it cost us post 9-11 momentum, it appears to have cost us the white house, our capitalist economic system, and may even have cost us freedom of speech at home once Obama get elected, and starts pushing “thought crime laws” through a democratic controlled congress. Most important of all…it cost us time. Time we can not have back. Eight years of wasted chances since 9-11.
I may appear like a complete conspiracy nut to some. That maybe is true, but I am right on this one. We deserve what we have gotten, because so-called conservatives, who were supposed to act as a check against progressive liberals taking over the country, have by their insistence in sticking with something that was doomed to fail, ended up doing just that.
Congratulations! Get ready for the “Age of O”…and god help us all…
Yes. And, by extension, I imagine that WWII era Japanese were big MacArthur boosters.
It mystifies me that people like Richard Clarke become designated 'counter-terrorism experts'. How many terrorists has he ever killed? How many terrorists has he spanked? With how many terrorists has he exchanged harsh words?
Clarke, like so many in President Bush's administration, was nothing more than a counter-terrorism dilletante. Just as President Bush was never more than dilletante president.
'In other words, all foreign policy aside, bin Laden has made it perfectly clear that nothing less than submission to Islam, what Islamic law demands, will ever guarantee peace between the West and al-Qaedist radicals.
Funny, but even being an Islamic state doesn't keep a body politic from having trouble with al-Qaeda, does it? (As per Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Morocco, et. al.)
Think, America; think!
greatcometof1577: Imagine another scenario: We didn't go into Iraq. Saddam Hussein is not only still in power but has by now completely avoided any effects from sanctions, worn out America and Britain from continuing to have no-fly zones over Iraq, has reconstituted his military, has refurbished his WMD stock (as he said he would in interviews after his capture), has access to extraordinary wealth and is a major player on the world oil market, looks the great hero to the Arab street for defying America and the West and getting away with it and is back in the business of having contacts with all kinds of Islamic terrorist organizations on the premise that the enemy of my enemy is my friend (at least temporarily). Would we really be better off? Would Israel? Would Europe? Would not Bush be portrayed as feckless and weak by all the anti-Bushies out there? Would not Obama or an Obama type, even though not tough by nature, be putting on a good show about how when he gets in office SH will be brought into line, something both Bushes failed at? Would not many, many Americans be complaining that Bush just isn't man enough to deal with someone like SH? Would our economy really be better off? Just wondering.
Great argument Wellington.
The hindsight of the nay-sayers always seems to be 20-20, but a penetrating mind can ascertain otherwise. It can certainly be argued that the "Iraq project" was not worth the cost in blood and treasure, but the idea that not one iota of good has come from it is pure myopia.
1) a dangerous megalomaniac has been removed from power, one who had a penchant for invading neighbors, using WMDs, and the only leader in the world who publicly offered generous subsidies to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine
2) the prospect of either Qusay or Uday inheriting the throne was certain, meaning that the tyranny might have been perpetuated indefinitely
3) you are correct in your assertion that the sanctions were being successfully circumvented (the "oil for food" fiasco) and would undoubtedly have soon collapsed; we can only speculate how Saddam would have utilized the coming oil bonanza, but - given the man's history and his megalomania, every indication is that he would be up to no good and - as his scientists have clearly stated, he was ready to resume his quest for nuclear and biological weapons
It's an interesting argument that the invasion of Iraq did nothing to solve the problems of despotism and fanaticism elsewhere in the world and was therefore futile. It is tantamount to saying that unless we can resolve all the problems of the world in one fell swoop - an obviously impossible task, we shouldn't do anything.
Obama is not a Muslim, but he is a dhimmi. The jihadis like dhimmis, they don't like Westerners who are aware of the jihad.
Posted by: tanstaafl
No kidding - and perhaps BO is hoping to one day sit down with OBL for a little can-we-at-least-be-friends get together, and the only preconditions he'll require is that OBL must promise that BO will leave with his head in tact.
....oops...intact
Wellington-
You address the one critical issue the whole anti involvement crowd will never confront.
The ramifications of leaving the Middle East without removing Saddam would have been staggering. The no fly zone policy was falling apart and would never have been maintained. "Sanctions" had already become a joke. Our "Friends" in Europe were deep in Saddam"s pocket along with the UN. They and our own Press were pressing for the removal of sanctions by blaming us for the death of 1 Million Iraqi Infants. Despite the reality that Saddam had a construction program demanding large sums of money while replacing the weapon systems we kept destroying. Somebody was supplying all of this with the MSM never providing an answer, let alone any questions. Simply watching the Discovery and History channel programs about Iraq during that time period would give someone a clue. Not by the narrator of course, but the Video clearly shows the Company names of where the Equipment came from.
It is even unlikely the effort in Afcrapstain would have been continued(if one even supported the effort) had we left the area completely with out tails between our legs. Where would the incentive been for Pakistain to continue allowing us transit rights with no muscle to enforce it.
I would even question if this web sight would be anywhere near the 26,347,617 views it currently has had we just run away.
The Military should have taken a sharp right hand turn into Iran as soon as Saddam fell. Unfortunately, by that time, the Demoncrats had picked up the rug the President was standing on and the MSM gave it a really big pull. At that time, Iran was no way prepared for the onslaught we could have directed towards them. We could have pulled out our forces afterward. Having set the conditions for what Hugh reiterates, to have actually worked.
Obama is an Islamic Manchurian candidate. He IS a Muslim and so is Reverend Wright. Black Liberation Theology is socially-acceptable Black Islam, nothing more. Their Jesus is the same as Islam's Esau. From the time he went from getting Ds at a 3rd-tier college to being admitted to Harvard because of his Islamic terrorist connections, i.e., Khalidi in this case, he has been well-connected to Islam. He has been propped up by traditional and Black Muslims since the beginning of his career, as well as the non-Muslim terrorist Bill Ayers. 'Dreams of My Father' was WRITTEN BY AYERS, according to the Washington Times last Friday. Terrorists have been planning the ascendancy of Obama for decades. The time was right and now here he is. And he's socialist, so just in case you were thinking he wasn't a Muslim, there ya go. Do you think his mother married two Muslims, was an anthropologist (the ultimate relativists, morally, culturally, ethically, legally, acaemically, intellectually, etc. -- on the far-Left fringes of academia, mind you), and somehow managed to never join the cult? Those men never even got US citizenship. They would have never married her if she weren't Muslim and she didn't have citizenship to offer them. No, Obama's a Muslim. And an Islamic Manchurian Candidate.
Wellington,
No one was more intent on getting Saddam than the DEMOCRATS of 1992. Bush 41 left Saddam in power and today Democrats consider him and James Baker as some kind of oracle, all-knowing and wise to the effects of involvement in Iraq. (The next minute they talk about him selling out to the Saudis but that's another matter.)
Meanwhile, right before the 1992 election, they were busy accusing Bush 41 of "coddling dictators, from Beijing to Baghdad".
Joe Lieberman aside, the only time you find hawks in the Democratic Party is when one of their own is in the White House. It's a far cry from the days of their unrepentant anti-communist rhetoric.
Who knows? Maybe Obama having to deal with terrorists will make some of them do yet another one-eighty. What would those who excoriate Bush 43 be saying today if Al Gore had been the one left to clean up the mess in the Middle East?
Cornelius and flowerknife_us: Thanks for your comments. Both were insightful as usual. You know, I have learned to proceed on two assumptions which have proven true time and time again. They are: 1) most of the world is a stupid, ungrateful place; 2) most of the world will blame America if it acts or will blame America if it doesn't act. If these assumptions are correct, which I think they are, you can see why I'm tired of most of the world.
“When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.”
“Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.”
greatcomet,
So how come the Muslims have yet to lose their ardor for fighting? They have been in a lesser position for more than eighty years but they carry on and their existence isn't even threatened.
We ARE threatened and we have no staying power after more than a few years? It would seem our principles and our lives matter less to us than theirs do to them.
What other conclusion can be drawn?
It's why the next time we are attacked we might as well do nothing unless we are prepared to go all the way. That means: no surrender, take no prisoners, level Mecca, Medina and a few other Muslim cities of importance. If we can't win an immediate and determinate victory then we might as well not fight at all.
"Give me liberty or give me death" is not in our blood anymore.
We will forever answer YES! to the question that preceded Patrick Henry's statement:
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" More Americans than not would say: YES, HELL YES!
"First of all, the idea that Al Qaeda supports McCain's election is nonsensical. This is simply a calculated piece of propaganda from the liberal Richard Clark designed to turn the "security quotient" - Obama's deficit on national security issues - on its head."
It's more than that. Clarke is trying to say between the lines that a more aggressive US policy causes Islamic terrorism, while a more "healing" US policy like Obama's will reduce terrorism, and that since Osama wants more of a climate of aggression to pursue the "clash of civilizations", he would logically want McCain.
For starters, it must be understood that al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attack, followed by their many grievance-filled communiqués -- which have only received more credence by the liberal Left’s assent -- have already taken a toll on American society, mostly by making widespread the notion that “more of the same,” that is, another Republican WASP president, will only lead to more of the same strife and terrorism. Hence that profound Democrat slogan: “Change.”
…
Will al-Qaeda try again to influence this year’s elections? It may well have reasoned that it’s not necessary; the leftist media has already done the job.
Behold the Left's long anticipated fruits of The Propaganda War of Feelings and Guilt have arrived:
Middle-Aged Women Drive Rise in U.S. Suicides: Study
While Rates Rise in Whites, Minority Suicide Rates Remain Steady
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DepressionNews/wireStory?id=6076625
Change is what the United States needs alright, and we need it badly. We need to stop apologizing for being alive and start being proud of our collective history, our country, and our freedom, regardless of our individual ancestry. We need to stop focusing solely on our diversity, on our differences, and start concentrating on the ideas that bind us together.
We need to dismiss the argument that any group is guilty for the sins of their ancestors, and start marginalizing those who would convince us otherwise. We are responsible only for our actions and what we teach our children. No other country on earth has been as successful as ours at learning from our past and merging so many divergent backgrounds into a cohesive whole.
Most of all, we need to stop our relentless movement to the Left. "Staying the course" of our Leftward trajectory will only end in an increased scale of unrest, misery, poverty, and diminished opportunity for all of us. The utopian, emotionally based, perpetual motion economics of Marx and the Left simply doesn't work. No economy will automatically generate wealth without work. And no one voluntarily works their life away for welfare of those not in their immediate families. We cannot tax ourselves to prosperity, or even to subsistence.
Embracing Marxism will lead us all to financial ruin and political chaos, as it has for every other society which has fallen victim to it's lure. It's time for change alright; it's time to grow up, face the world as it is, and embrace the ideas that have been proven to work.
Socialism cannot exist without capitalism. Too much Socialism destroys Capitalism.
An example of just how far the Demoncratic Party has shifted over the years.
John F. Kennedy's memorial speech, when he stated his famous line. "Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country". Has morphed, by the Party and Obama, with prettier words for the times, to mean- "Ask not what you can do for your Country, but what your Country can do for You".
It is nauseating to hear todays Demoncrats Lionize this man when they obviously have no clue what he actually meant. Or outright lie about it thinking nobody remembers what he actually said.
Besides. so what if Kennedy forced the removal of land based Missiles when the Russians parked a Submarine in Havana Harbor in its place? Just because a U-2 could not see it, does not mean it wasn't there.
Is this what we can expect from Obama?
I believe what Sandmonkey says, which is that having Republicans/conservatives in power constrains Sharia. It wasn't until we had a Democrat Legislative branch that Egypt decided to lower the age of marriage to 9 and to relegalize female genital mutilation, so I have to agree with him. Under an Obama presidency they'll probably relegalize slavery all throughout the Muslim world. Obama has gotten to where he is, not through hard work, not through perserverance, not by earning it, but by being propped-up and whored-out to black and Arab supremacists. Iran wasn't talking trash until Obama said that he would meet with him without preconditions. Before that he was all 'oh no, our nuclear facilities are just for energy,' but after Obama said that he was all 'I'm going to wipe the Zionists off the map.' Now that Obama stands a chance at winning Ahmedinejad has his own preconditions (no support for Israel and pulling all our troops out of the Middle East, but screw the African Muslims I guess). Liberalism emboldens Muslims. That's the difference between Europe/Canada and America/Australia. We don't allow polygamy, we don't allow people to stay on welfare indefinitely, and we don't allow Muslims to not work or to resie in their little enclaves and we're still inhabitable because of it: because we're more conservative than Eurabia.
We're still habitable because of it. Duh.
Denver Rodeo,
Good analysis.
Wellington, Cornelius, flowerknife_us, etc etc…
I have no problem playing the scenario “what could have been” game…
Swirly dream sequence coming on…counting sheep…ZZZZZZZLet me give you a scenario of my own. Gore wins the 2000 election, and screws up post 9-11 like any good progressive liberal. An enraged America votes him out in 2004, and elects a Republican (I don’t care who because he would not have been BUSH). Today a Republican president would be on his way to second term in office. The congress, in GOP control, looks forward to a bright future.
After the crushing of the Taliban, and AQ in Afghanistan, and in an incursion into western Pakistan in 2006, Osama and Co. are dead without a doubt. US forces are coming home, mission accomplished in that one front for now. The international community claims the U.S. used excessive force, and has left those areas in Western Pakistan in ruins. The UN writes us a nasty memo. The U.S. denies it. The United States bombs Iran reducing her ability to produce nuclear weapons in 2007. Once again the UN complains. The U.S. president sends the UN a nasty memo.
In the mean time the United States has adopted a military strategy that takes ISLAM into account. By seeking to divide and weaken. Using a doctrine similar to the cold war, the United States arms groups hell bent on fighting Islam, in places like Nigeria, Lebanon, Sudan, and Thailand. Robert Spencer is now a rising star in intelligence and security circles. The “Spencer Doctrine” is now making headway in a receptive conservative administration. Immigration reform is passed. Mexicans still get in alas, but Muslims don’t unless for very special reasons, like they want to convert. In April 2008, the Gulf States complain about America being a bully, the United States threatens to take their oil from them “for the good of the world”, they get the UN to write another nasty memo, the U.S., in response, gives the UN an eviction notice.
Last Month, Hugo Chavez “falls” down some stairs in his palace, and dies. Pro-American forces take over. Obama is a Senator from Illinois in the minority party in congress. Plans are on the table for doing away with Saddam, I see a tactical laser strike in his near future….god willing…
I like my dream better…
The point of this “dream”, no matter how fanciful you might think it is, is that Bush has royally screwed up. There were many other things he could have done that were better than invading Iraq. Obama is like some kind of horseman of the Apocalypse, all because Bush did not do his job, instead of crushing the enemy, he has instead turned our “War on Terror” into a reclamation project from hell, throwing bundles of cash at the problem in the hope that they will love us!
PMK
Is what causes things like 9-11 to occur related to dictators (Saddam) in the Middle East, or is it related to Islam?
I say it is olde ye Islam. So do you.. Therefore if we are not ready to fight that ideology, we have no hope of a long lasting victory, anywhere...period. Not in Iraq, or in the streets of London. This is an argument that has been played out at this site so many times in the past. The Jihadist know what they are fighting against. We are fighting the wrong war…
MY observation was only this, by wasting billions in Iraq, lives in Iraq, kissing Arabian leaders on the lips, giving Egypt, and Pakistan handouts like we are Santa Claus on crack, and at the same time refusing to tackle the issue at hand which is Islam, Bush ended up just confusing the American public.
In other words, I may defend the Crusades in principle, which was a counter-attack against Islamic aggression, but that does not mean I think the crusaders did intelligent things, like the Battle of Hattin in 1187, or the Sacking of Constantinople in 1204. Both were idiotic, so too was this pointless campaign in Iraq.
Hattin in 1187 = Jerusalem lost
Sacking of Constantinople in 1204 = Divided Christianity, weakening Constantinople even more.
Iraq = Obama
Four years of Al Gore and Robert would never been allowed to even speak. The rest is just a bit implausible.
greatcometof1577: I posited one variable only--------Bush didn't go into Iraq. You put forward all kinds of variables. Different game. I wasn't playing that game. Try sticking to one variable next time when that is what is called for.
Wellington, Cornelius and Flowerknife, good points. Another interesting thing, for those who now seem to believe that everything was hunky-dory before the Iraq war, was the rhetoric used by the Left vis-a-vis sanctions on Iraq--that sanctions had supposedly killed a million Iraqi children (I never knew where this figure was supposed to have come from), and were harsh and barbaric.
Well, now, oddly, we hear that those same sanctions were supposedly working so well, and were such a civilized approach to things.