Zawahiri... in his own words Visions for the Middle Eat

HT to Laura Mansfield of The Mansfield Report, via Gateway Pundit.

Read the full text of open interview with Zawahiri.

There is little excuse for liberal denial anymore. I speak of their naive promises that US exit from Iraq (and even Afghanistan) will appease the global Islamic jihad movement. I have oft pointed out that were we to exit both Iraq and Afghanistan, we are merely sitting with the identical presence in the Middle East as we had on September 11th.

The jihad movement demands far more than withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan. And those demands are not limited to the withdrawal of US military, but even "Crusader" influence.... which could be interpreted as anything from democratic governments in Arab countries to the McDonalds or Starbucks on the corner of a Dubai or Kuwait City street.

Thus, reprinted below, are some excerpts of Zawahiri... in his own words.. that substantiate the naivety of our DNC candidates and their promised foreign policy gaffes in the works.

First, some cut and paste of questions/responses from the 48 page translation. First INRE the future of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran... plus the jihad movements' visions for their future.

“The first question: what do you expect to happen in Iraq after America’s withdrawal with Allah’s permission? And do the Rejectionist’s armed militias represent a worry to the Mujahideen? And how will the Mujahideen deal with these militias?

First: I expect the Jihadi influence to spread after the Americans’ exit from Iraq, and to move towards Jerusalem (with Allah’s permission). As for the militias mentioned, they have failed to eliminate the Jihad with the help of what is called the strongest power in the history of mankind, so will they succeed by themselves or with the help of Iran?

Zawahiri's promise of the jihadis making a "move towards Jerusalem" does not mean, in my opinion, they will immediately set out to attack Israel. Instead it may mean that with clearing out the infidel, they can concentrate on their long term strategy to eliminate Israel and their occupation of territories the jihad movement claims for their Caliphate. More on this below... keep reading.

Zawahiri also scoffs at the notion that if the jihad movement cannot be defeated in Iraq with America's superpower, then Iraq has no chance of defending itself.. even with help from Iran. But he reserves a special message for the Awakening Council in Iraq, and probably for any future similar movement.

“2 – Is there a word you would like to direct, our Shaykh, to the apostates of the Awakening Councils?”

Second: As for the apostates of the Awakening Councils, I tell them: the Mujahideen will – with Allah’s help and will – deal with you according to the tradition of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (with whom Allah was pleased): a war which ousts or a peace which humiliates.

Simply translated, they will fight to the death to in war, or they can surrender and endure the humiliation of their cowardice.

And speaking of Iran...

“The second question: what is Your Eminence’s opinion about the American threats to Iran? And does America really intend to strike Iran? And if that happens, what do you expect will happen in the region? And will it be in the interest of the Mujahideen or not?

Second: the dispute between America and Iran is a real dispute based on the struggle over areas of influence, and the possibility of America striking Iran is a real possibility. As for what might happen in the region, I can only say that major changes will occur in the region, and the situation will be in the interest of the Mujahideen if the war saps both of them. If, however, one of them emerges victorious, its influence will intensify and fierce battles will begin between it and the Mujahideen, except that the Jihadi awakening currently under way and the degeneration state of affairs of the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq will make it impossible for Iran or America to become the sole decision-maker in the region.

Zawahiri seems content to let Iran and the US duke it out, and take on whoever is left standing. But the hope is that any conflict will weaken both, so as to be beyond any influence.

“The third question: What is your evaluation of America’s situation now? Has it really begun to collapse? And what do you expect if the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq? Will you be satisfied with this state of affairs, or will you attempt to drag American into a new war?

Third: There is no doubt that the American collapse has begun, and the myth of unipolarity has ended. And the raids on New York and Washington were identifying marks of this collapse, but I point out that the collapse of empires doesn’t come in a single moment, but rather, may take decades, and the collapse of the Soviet Union is the nearest example of that. And the withdrawal of America from Afghanistan and Iraq will be in the interest of the Muslims with Allah’s permission, and the Jihadi vanguard has announced that its objective on which it will not compromise – at this stage – is the withdrawal of all unbelieving forces from the lands of the Muslims.

Zawahiri's translation uses an odd and irregular form of the word, unipolar... which means a manic depressive disorder. "...myth of unipolarity has ended". To analyze it in the context of a form of "polarity", meaning attraction and/or opposition of two extremes or poles, then adding the "uni", meaning one, it merely nullifies the push/pull of extremes.

Truthfully, this translation doesn't clearly convey Zawahiri's message for is confusion of term. However what is clear is that Zawahiri marks 911 as a major turning point in America's collapse. And my guess he probably means collapse from within.. perhaps by setting the nation into deep, "manic" divide. But that is merely my speculation.

INRE dragging America into another war. Zawahiri simply states that US forces are not the only intruders on his desired Caliphate. *Any* forces and influences that are unbelievers must go. That will include NATO forces (see UN comments further below). And extending to "influence", any western business influence they consider "unIslamic".

“The fourth question: I request Your Eminence to give us a look at the future of the Jihadi march: i.e. after five or six years, how will the situation be in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, the Land of the Two Sanctuaries, the Islamic Maghrib, Chechnya, Somalia and Darfur? (Mata Note: I believe the Land of Two Sanctuaries is Saudi Arabia)

Fourth: I expect – by the grace of Allah – the spreading of the Jihadi tide and an increase in its influence corresponding to the receding of the influence of the Crusaders, Jews and their agents in the places I mentioned.

Note carefully, the goal is to eliminate the influence of Jews and Crusaders entirely. And Zawahiri sees a rise of Islamic law in ratio to a decline of western influence over the next five years.

He states again the goals more clearly in another question/answer section. This in regard, not to western occupation and influence, but directly against what he considers "apostate" regimes.... or Arab regimes that abandon or renounce Islam in their rule.

“8: What is the usefulness of Jihad combat actions against the apostate Arab regimes, which usually target the regimes’ lackeys without severing the heads? And how do you evaluate the results of these actions, especially in Algeria, Egypt and the country of the two Sanctuaries?”

Eighth: I talked before about the Jihadi actions in Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula, and I referred to our practical discretion at this stage, but I would like to add here three notes:

1) The clash with the corrupt regimes must occur sooner or later if we want to set up the Muslim state and liberate the lands of Islam.

2) The overall position is open to adjustment from one territory to another. So for
example, in Algeria the brothers pair targeting of Jewish and Western interests with waging a guerilla war against the hireling government, because their circumstances make it possible for them to do that.

3) Severing the heads isn’t the objective: rather, the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government. And the means of change differ from one territory to another.

I repeat... "the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government." So in the first stated goal above, it was to see receding influence of Jews and Crusaders. But there is a second stated goal. Once the jihad movement can bring American resolve to her knees, their next target are the Arab governments themselves - those who do not implement and rule by Islamic law.

These governments are also marked for demise by mere cooperation with the west on intelligence.Even perhaps, by trade. And it is this phrasing that makes me believe the "move towards Jerusalem" is actually the quest to surround Israel with the Islamic Caliphate.

Which brings us to the first volume of pages where Zawahiri was pretty beat up by numerous questions (taken in advance and answered in bulk later...) on their disregard towards killing fellow Muslims.

His responses are vast and repetitive over the oft answered subject. But they ever followed the same theme.... Muslims who cooperate with Crusaders are infidels, and thereby fair game in jihad. They do not kill "innocents", however do admit that there are times when they die because they are used as a "human shield", as the infidel situates himself amidst the Muslim community.

I would like to clarify to the brother questioner that we don’t kill innocents: in fact, we fight those who kill innocents. Those who kill innocents are the Americans, the Jews, the Russians and the French and their agents. Were we insane killers of innocents as the questioner claims, it would be possible for us to kill thousands of them in the crowded markets, but we are confronting the enemies of the Muslim Ummah and targeting them, and it may be the case that during this, an innocent might fall unintentionally or unavoidably, and the Mujahideen have warned repeatedly the Muslims in general that they are in a war with the senior criminals – the Americans and Jews and their allies and agents – and that they must keep away from the places where these enemies gather.

Using the inherent belief that any association and cooperation with those the jihad movement considers infidels and the enemy, Muslims who indulge in democracy, elections, anything with western influence, are targets. But there will be no international presence in the jihadi's Caliphate either... For Zawahiri has specifically targeted the United Nations as an enemy, and taunted them for their fast withdrawal in Iraq upon confrontation.

The operation on the 11th of December was against the headquarters of the United Nations and the Constitutional Assembly and Police Academy, not against children’s schools or women’s hospitals. And the United Nations is an enemy of Islam and Muslims: it is the one which codified and legitimized the setting up of the state of Israel and its taking over of the Muslims’ lands. It is the one which considers Chechnya an inseparable part of Crusader Russia, and consider Ceuta and Melilla inseparable parts of Crusader Spain. And it is the one which codified the Crusader presence in Afghanistan through the Bonn conference, and codified the Crusader presence in Iraq through its various resolutions, and approved the separation of East Timor from Indonesia, while it doesn’t recognize that [right] for Chechnya, nor for all the Muslim Caucasus, nor for Kashmir, nor for Ceuta and Melilla, nor for Bosnia.

Allah granted success to the heroic Amir and – as we consider him – martyr Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi (may Allah have mercy on him), and he blew up the headquarters of the United Nations in Baghdad at the beginning of the Crusader invasion of Iraq, and its remnants turned back in flight. And thus he ruined the Crusaders’ plans to cover the Crusader invasion with international forces which wouldn’t provoke Arab and Islamic sensitivities. This is the same ruse which the Crusaders used in Lebanon, and so the forces of Hizbullah withdrew 30 kilometers to the rear and approved an international Crusader presence to occupy the lands of the Muslims on Lebanese soil, and the leadership of Hizbullah even promised to preserve the safety of those Crusader forces occupying the Muslims’ lands.

There is much much more here - giving us an unedited view into the enemy's mind and goals. The question is, will our media blind the electorate to the truth by ignoring and minimizing Zawahiri's words? And next POTUS even bother to listen?

On Saddam's Order

Mark Eichenlaub, manager and editor of The Regime of Terror, has an analysis of the latest Iraq Perspectives Project, Vol I (aka, the Pentagone Report IV). Read "On Saddam's Order" at National Review Online.

I blogged on this report back on March 13th, snarling and growling at the misleading headlines and pack of lies that were being passed off as journalism. But since that time, many - most with far more expertise than I - are pouring thru the 94 page document and expounding on the details.

Several media outlets - but not an overwhelming amount by any means - have done some great work. But Mark has taken it a step further - giving a much needed (however gentle) slap across the face by those who indulge in "the meaning of is... is" word games. Ya made me smile, Mark!

Excerpts below are the opening, and closing paragraphs. But I highly recommend everything in the middle as a "must read".

Links. Ties. Operational links. Sponsorship. These terms have vastly different meanings to different members of the media when they discuss relations between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the al-Qaeda network. This became clear yet again last week when news outlets reported on the Department of Defense-sponsored Iraqi Perspectives Project (all five volumes of which are now available here). The vast majority of news reports focused on a single sentence that was incorrectly taken to mean that no ties, links, relations or connections of any sort existed between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the al-Qaeda movement.

What exact word or phrase best describes the relations between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaeda, as well as other Islamic terror groups, is certainly debatable. What is not debatable, based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, is that Saddam Hussein’s regime funded, trained, and assisted terrorist groups (including al-Qaeda proxies), and sometimes actually ordered them to attack American citizens, American interests, and American allies. To compound the danger, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was simultaneously using its intelligence and security apparatus to plot and conduct terror attacks of its own.

snip

Instead of squabbling over who is and isn’t a member of al-Qaeda and what the requirements of a “link” or “connection” are, this report details Saddam’s broad support for (and sometimes direction of) a multitude of terrorist groups targeting Americans and American allies. Based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam’s Iraq did not just use terrorism against America and her allies but took advantage of “the rising fundamentalism in the region” as an “opportunity to make terrorism . . . a formal instrument of state power.” Because of Saddam’s removal, which came at considerable cost in American blood and gold, a “formal instrument” of state terrorism is no longer secretly plotting to kill Americans. The American public deserves to know what a threat was removed for that price.

Now if we could just get them to stop playing the same game with what constitutes a WMD, or al Qaeda as the pure definition of the enemy.

BEWARE MEDIA HEADLINE LIES! From the Pentagon Report IV

Again the reading comprehension challenged media rears it's ugly head. Splashed everywhere in headlines of varying forms:

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida.. per Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers.

An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

Whoa there, Nelly. Let's back up, shall we? The "exhaustive" review is a sheer Strobel dramatization. Assuming Strobel wasn't describing the analysts' state of mind while preparing the report, the reality given (as stated in the report) is that of the 600,000 or so docs, only 15% had been translated into English. And, presumably, used for this report.

There is no substitute for a complete read of this document. Trust not your local supposed "journalist" with your own education of the facts.

Link to full report available at this ABC article "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda", or order direct from the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia in paper or CD versions via US Mail services. Warning, it's a 94-pg, 11.74MB PDF). Oh yes... so much for it being "hidden" from public view, right?

Again, these minimum faux pas aside, I am stunned as to the headlines when you read the report. For those "give me the short version" types, let's leap to the conclusion on page 45 of the report (pg 65 of the PDF version).

One question remains regarding Iraq's terrorism capability: Is there
anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam's statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam's ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's "coercion" toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting

(1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats,

(2)the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and

(3) organizational relationships and "outreach programs" for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.

Hummm... so far, not such a slam dunk proving we had "no justified reason" to eye Saddam warily. In fact, I'd say most American's may sit back and say "wow! I didn't know that!". It's hardly the "no threat" BS pounded into our sheeple heads for the past five years.

So let's go back to the gloating headline... that "no link" between Saddam and al Qaeda bit, and see what the report really did say. From the Executive Summary:

The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents
uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and forces of pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Ba'ath movement.

But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks.

No "smoking gun" or "direct connection" was found. I have a serious beef with the media interpretation of this as a headline. And perhaps with the authors for not spelling it out so that the history-challenged can fully understand the global Islamic jihad players and their backgrounds. But the key word here is "direct".


SADDAM REGIME TIES VIA MULLA OMAR's TALIBAN
and PAKISTAN's MAULANA FAZLUR RAHMAN

If I purchase a 6 pack of Budweiser from the local mart, am I supporting Anheiser-Busch? If I buy an appliance made in China from Walmart, am I supporting Chinese industry? If I donate to a charity, whom I know full well works with a designated terror group, am I culpable for supporting terrorism?

The answer to all three is an emphatic "YES". I've no "direct" sale link to Anheiser-Busch or China, but I am most certainly engaging in a relationship that benefits the other end of the "triangulation". And if I knowingly provide monetary aid to a charity that is passing it along to a terrorist network, I most certainly am supporting terrorism.

So we have it that, in Nov of 1999, the Taliban's commander Mulla Omar sent his personal Defense Minister, the Maulana Fazlur Rahman (of today's Pakistan's JUI-F) to meet with Saddam to ask for aid. From the IIS agent's confiscated diary, and quote from Ray Robison's "Both in One Trench",

According to the record of the event, the Saddam regime agreed to provide that vital support to a desperate Taliban regime.

snip

An agent of Saddam’s intelligence service was present to transcribe the meetings in Arabic. His spy tradecraft was a little sloppy at times and perhaps he never considered that his records would someday lead to a revealing look at Saddam’s ties to international Islamic jihad. This man, whose name is believed to be Khaled Abd El Majid, acted as a liaison between Saddam’s government and its contacts with influence with organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including al-Qaeda and the Taliban. He moved between Iraq and Pakistan as evidenced by entries in a notebook he kept that was bought in Pakistan. He coordinated meetings between the Saddam regime and Islamic terrorists.

From another section in Both in One Trench:

The IIS Director described the relationship between the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in Afghanistan by stating “We already believe that there are no points of disagreement between us and the Taliban because we are both in one trench facing the world’s oppression.”

OBL's al Qaeda, in the meantime, had moved it's headquarters from the Sudan to Afghanistan and allied with the Taliban in 1996. So as of the Nov 1999 meeting with Omar's Defense Minister, Saddam was agreeing to aid the Taliban... who was already playing host to OBL's al Qaeda network. One of those "indirect" ties to al Qaeda.


PLUS THOSE PESKY DIRECT TIES TO AL QAEDA...

Were it not enough for Saddam to be helping the Taliban, and in triangulation, al Qaeda, another truth emerges from this report. Again for the history challenged: Section II, State Relations with Terror Groups reprtings Extract 10 on pg 13-15 in the report (pg 33-35 of the PDF). It is here we find detailed evidence of Islamic jihad groups Saddam's regime was supporting, in a memo dated March of 1993.

Of these groups, the most notable mentioned was Egyptian Islamic Jihad (aka Islamic Jihad Organization). Ring a bell? Well it should. Zawahiri led the EIJ from 1993,and orchestrated the merger with what we know as today's al Qaeda in 1998... then issuing the World Islamic Front Statement of 1998.

This is, contrary to the media headlines, a very direct link to al Qaeda. Saddam is documented in this report as dealing with Zawahiri since his EIJ leadership. Are we to assume that when Zawahiri changed the name of the movement, Saddam magically ostracized him, finding him to be of no further value?

The report addresses this morphing of the players and their group names over time as well. From pg 17 (PDF pg 37):

One other memorandum (Extract 12) bears consideration. Drafted
in Saddam's office, it refers to an agreement with Islamic terrorists to conduct operations against the Egyptian regime during the first Gulf War (1991) and for continued financial support for the terrorists after hostilities ended.

Mata Musing: A memo addressed to Zawahiri's Islamic Jihad Organization is then reprinted.

The last sentence (in italics referring to the agreement with Islamist terrorists) deserves special attention: it refers to a top-secret order for Saddam's intelligence services to maintain contact with any movement in Arab countries. While it is not surprising that Saddam, one of the last of the Middle East's revolutionary nationalists, would endeavor to support revolutionary groups, it is important to recognize that many of these nationalist groups changed in the late 1990s. Saddam viewed these groups through the eyes of a pan-Arab revolutionary, while the leaders of the growing Islamist movements viewed them as potential affiliates for their Jihad. In other words, two movements, one pan-Arab and the other pan-Islamic, were seeking and developing supporters from the same demographic pool.


Captured documents reveal that later IIS activities went beyond just maintaining contact. For example, at the time this memorandum was written 39, the Iraqi GMID was training Sudanese fighters inside Iraq. The details appear in a separate GMID report40 (21 ovember 2001) about the reorganization or reconstruction of a training camp in the Sudan. This memorandum states that Iraq would send one administrative officer to establish and oversee the camp and that the following equipment would be provided initially: (snip)

Yes folks. Not only does this report document that Iraq was training Arab non-Iraqi jihad fighters in Iraq, but was specifically training some Sudanese fighters. It's also a bit more of a troubling coincidence that Saddam:

In the first, from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed the council member of Saddam's decision to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia."

In the second memorandum, Saddam orders the IIS Director to revise a plan the IIS director had previously forwarded to include setting up operations inside Somalia. The overlap between bin Laden's and Saddam's interests in Somalia provides a tactical example of the parallel between Iraq and radical Islam: at the same time Saddam was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.

from pg 18 of the Pentagon report/pg 37 of the PDF

And who, pray tell, in 1993 was headquartered in Sudan? That would be al Qaeda's previous address - from 1991 to 1996. Could it be that Saddam's terrorist training camps were training OBL's Sudanese fighters?

Coincidence in timing? I think not. In fact, it begs to be asked, did Saddam finance and/or have involvement with Clinton's infamous Somalian "Black Hawk Down" operation? It is well known that the local fighters, who attacked US troops, were armed and trained by OBL.

This Pentagon Report, contrary to the BS headlines splashed in your faces, validates even further all that I've already read in Robison's "Both in One Trench". That Saddam did, in fact, have ties to al Qaeda. Ties thru the Taliban, and ties thru Zawahiri as not only the Egyptian Islamic Jihad but also as his new status as an al Qaeda member. As well as ties to any other jihad movement that suited his needs.

Do not be fooled, people. This is an important election year. And the headlines are nothing but BS propaganda by an agenda driven media. Their misinterpretation and false claims are easily debunked with the actual reading of the report.

Jihad -AQ umbrella groups still fracturing?

First to catch my eye, and get my brain cells working, was a Reuters article by Jon Hemming, and edited by Alex Richardson - "Taliban leader taunts NATO". It is, as one would expect, the rantings of a Taliban chieftain tossing out barbs and propaganda for a media boost to his "troops".

Apart from the relief that someone (meaning at least Omar) actually realizes that NATO holds the reins in Afghanistan, and not US commanders, of the most interest was the last paragraph in the article...

Omar promised no let up in Taliban activities during the usual lull in fighting that accompanies the harsh Afghan winter and denied there was any rift in his organisation.

Hello? Rift in the organization? Forget Omar's veiled threats and pompous bragging. To me the real story is what Hemming did NOT write about. And a subject that I've been craving more info on daily... to no avail.

And that takes us back to what I blogged on Ray Robison's suggestion that AQ and the Global Islamic Jihad Movement in general is fracturing in multiple places at the very foundations.


There should be more specifics on this "rift" that Mullah Omar goes out of his way to publicly deny... the more than curious want to know.

Also more feedback from Zawahiri on a few different subjects - courtesy of Threatswatch. He condemned the Arab leadership for "betrayal" for their Annapolis summit meeting in his latest Dec 14th video distribution.

“The czar of Washington invited 16 Arab countries… to sit in one room, at one table with the Israelis… (and) witnessed the betrayal deals to sell Palestine.” After calling upon Palestinians to not lose sight of the goal “to liberate every inch of Muslim land.”

But he's not done yet... remember Sayd Imam al-Sharif? He was Zawahiri's predecessor for the group, Egyptian Islamic Jihad. And, in mid November, fired off a new jihad manual with kinder, gentler jihad rules of engagement. Zawahiri, having no respect for his predecessor's views, had a few choice words for him as well..

Zawahiri turns to Egypt and rails against Sayyed Imam al-Sharif, a leading jihadi militant who last month recanted while in prison. Quoting Malcolm X he states that Islam must be defended against unbelief and then paints the Liberal Islam movement as a creation of the United States. “Those revisionists (including Sayyed Imam),” he says, “are in fact calling for a new American religion that violates God’s rules.”

Oh my... Omar creates a new moniker... "Liberal Islam". Think the liberal/progressives in the US will note the distinct similarity?

Last, but not least, this final excerpted Zawahiri rant is for those of you who think if we leave Iraq, the bad guys will leave us alone. In simpler words, those who are sure the only AQ battlefronts for their Caliphate are Iraq and Afghanistan. Another not-so-subtle reminder as to why it is called the "Global Islamic Jihad Movement".

Finally, Zawahiri discusses Algeria, reminding Algerian listeners that it sent representatives to the Annapolis conference, and then concludes with a shout-out to al-Qaeda’s other theaters, including Andalusia, Sebta, Melilla, Bosnia, Kosovo, Cyprus, Jerusalem, Haifa, Um Rashrash, Baghdad, Kabul, and Kashmir and Grozny.”

All in all, the signs of a disintegrating jihad movement, as we know it now, are there. But all too few media are actually putting two and two together on the sporadic news blurbs that fly fast and furious from Kosovo, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Iraq and North Africa.

It must be remembered that it is documented that Mullah Omar and UBL have had power tiffs in the past... From a 2004 Atlantic Monthly feature by Alan Cullison, email translations from an Arab-AQ laptop the journalist purchased in Kabul in the fall of 2001. Turns out the laptop was used mostly by Zawahiri. From one email in particular, an admonishment from Taliban leaders sent to OBL, via Zawahiri, dated July 19, 1999...

The Leader of the Faithful, who should be obeyed where he reigns, is Muhammad Omar, not Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden and his companions are only guests seeking refuge and have to adhere to the terms laid out by the person who provided it for them. This is legitimate and logical.

Not a lot of love lost there.

It should be remembered that the major stronghold for the AQ umbrella organization, that encompasses more than 18 named subgroups, lies in Pakistan/Afghanistan - with strong threads to Egypt. So to experience a large crevice in the heart of the jihad organization is a severe blow indeed.

We need to learn more of this Taliban "rift" Omar touches on.. and find a way to feed it's fury further. In the world of jihad, friends and allies today are the enemies tomorrow. They bond long enough to achieve a common goal, then again turn to feast on their own for power and control.

And that suits the rest of the world just fine.

Not so fast on that "no WMDs" claim....

Interesting FrontPage article by Caroline Glick today... The Proliferation Dodge is a must read, and echoes what I've been hounding on now for months. That being those Iraqi government documents seized after our 2003 entry - finally getting translations and published - are revealing more about Saddam, his relationships with the global Islamic jihad movement, and his WMD programmes.

Over the weekend former federal prosecutor and the head of the non-governmental International Intelligence Summit, John Loftus, released a report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. His report was based on a private study of captured Iraqi documents. These were the unread Arabic language documents that U.S. forces seized, but had not managed to translate after overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 2003.

After a prolonged battle between Congress and then director of U.S. National Intelligence John Negroponte, President George W. Bush ordered those documents posted on a public access Web site last year. They were taken down after it was discovered that among the Iraqi documents were precise descriptions of how to build nuclear weapons.

As Loftus summarized, "The gist of the new evidence is this: Roughly one-quarter of Saddam's WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990s. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid-to-late-1990's. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam's entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans' noses."

Loftus then cites Israeli sources who claim that the Iraqi nuclear program was transferred to the Deir az Zour province in Syria.

Loftus's report jibes with a report published on the Web site of Kuwait's Al Seyassah's newspaper on September 25, 2006. That report, which I noted last November, cited European intelligence sources and claimed that in late 2004 Syria began developing a nuclear program near its border with Turkey. Syria's program, which was run by President Bashar Assad's brother Maher and defended by an Iranian Revolutionary Guards brigade, had by mid-2006 "reached the stage of medium activity." The Kuwaiti report stated that the Syrian nuclear program was based "on equipment and materials that the sons of the deposed Iraqi leader, Uday and Qusai transferred to Syria by using dozens of civilian trucks and trains, before and after the U.S.-British invasion in March 2003." The program, which was run by Iranians with assistance from Iraqi scientists and scientists from the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union, "was originally built on the remains of the Iraqi program after it was wholly transferred to Syria."

Glick goes on in this exemplary report - pointing out how complacent leaders fail the world's security when they demonstrate a severe lack of interest in pursuing the informational truths, and downplay their actual existence.

Stellar stuff... truly stellar. Will the media ever admit their premature "there were no WMDs" rallying cry was in error? Will Pelosi and Reid ever apologize for their blatant lies?

Or will this all be chalked up to disbelievers refusing to recognize the documents are genuine because it's not only inconvenient, but proves the Iraq action was warranted? Oh no! Could it be Bush was correct? How dastardly...

Probably the latter. And it is these attitudes that will be the death of us all.

Media's simplistic "Sunni vs Shia" analyses again proven wrong...

We've been told over and over by an undereducated media that Iraq is merely a civil war - Sunni vs Shia violence - and that Saddam was never a danger as he could never have collaborated with the likes of Bin Laden and peers. It appears beyond a stubborn media (and Congress') comprehension to grasp the true convolution of relationships between Wahhabi and Deobandi mentalities, and the way they interact and function - yea... even survive - with Arab/Islamic states and with each other.

Again Ray Robison, Richard Duniway and "Sammi" have been proven correct in their co-authored work, Both in one Trench. The book, providing translations and analyses of documents confiscated in Iraq in 2003 proves that Saddam had been working and funding the global Islamic jihad movement. He held power and control, yes. But to do that, he had to form alliances with those the media tells us he hated.

Echoing the very same assessment is today's Jawa Report, Syrian Intelligence Linked to al Qaeda in Lebanon".

Fatah al-Islam is an al Qaeda affiliated group in Lebanon. Why would Syria support an al Qaeda linked group when the Syrian Baathists are so deeply hated by the Islamists? The answer is that the Islamists aren't opposed to strategic alliances, even with regimes they consider 'apostate'.

Below quote is from the Jawa Report referenced NY Sun article, Syrian Intelligence Linked to Terrorist Group.

"Direct contact between some of Fatah al-Islam's leaders and some senior Syrian intelligence officers, which were revealed in the interrogations, are consistent with the suspicion that Syrian intelligence has used Fatah al-Islam to serve its political and security objectives in Lebanon," Mr. Siniora wrote, according to Mr. Ban's report to the Security Council.

For comparison, a summary by Ray Robison in the Introduction of Both in One Trench:

The Saddam regime supported Islamic terrorists the same as it supported other
‘secular’ terrorists. The key to understanding this issue is the logical distinction
between working with Islamic extremists to achieve mutual objectives outside of
Iraq versus having them exist uncontrolled inside Iraq. Saddam’s regime was “open
for business” to leaders from al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, Hamas,
Afghani warlords and other Islamic extremist organizations. A singular instance or
two of the Saddam regime meeting with Islamic terrorist leaders could possibly be
discounted in the overall scheme of things. However, document after document
indicates that Saddam’s strategy was to support Islamic terrorists to achieve mutual
objectives. His embrace of Islamic extremists, at odds with his supposedly secular
regime, was a survival technique.

Eventually the truth of Saddam, his nefarious contacts, hidden deeds and intents that most certainly did threaten the US will come out. In the meantime, the naysayers will have their day spreading lies and disinformation. Because of hatred for this country? Or because of sheer stupidity and an aversion to research?

Hard to say. But either one is unforgivable as it relates to the security of this nation.

Bin Laden confirms "split" strategy is working

Back on 9/28, I posted links to Ray Robison's "A Quiet Triumph May Be Brewing" - an analysis of the overall strategy to weaken the global Islamic Jihad movement at it's base.

From that article:

There are signs that the global Islamic jihad movement is splitting apart, in what would be a tremendous achievement for American strategy. The center of the action is in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the very territory which is thought to harbor Usama, and from which Al Qaeda was able to launch 9/11. Capitalizing on existing splits, a trap was set and closed, and the benefits have only begun to be evident.

There were already signs of a split, but recent events strengthen that trend. In March and again in May of this year I reviewed relevant South Asian media reporting to predict that the global Islamic jihad movement was cracking up. That theory focused on a split between the leadership of al Qaeda and the jihad groups that secure them in Pakistan such as the Taliban.

Today, the bearded one speaks again. And unlike his previous videos, filled with threats, gloats and lofty Caliphate goals, he's reduced to pleading with his jihadist buds to get their act together...

This from, believe it or not, the ABC News blogs by Brian Ross. That ought to nullify any general news slant from the content.

Showing apparent signs of concern over events in Iraq, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden urged insurgents to "unite your lines into one" in an audiotape played on al Jazeera Monday.

"Don't be arrogant," bin Laden warned. "Your enemies are trying to break up the jihadi groups. I urge you all to work in one united group."

snip

Saying he was speaking to "everyone in the Muslim community," bin Laden urged "scholars and leaders of the jihad" to take on the role of uniting the groups "right now."

Right on Mr. Robison... you called it right almost a month ago.

Reluctant mea culpa included with the ABC story? Wesley Clarke, the former "Supreme Commander" who takes his past title to heart...

"It's always good news when they are divided," said Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser, now an ABC News consultant. "It's reflective that U.S. tactics are having some success."

Bet that hurt, eh Wes?

Sanchez assessment: What I said, but this timeby a Pulitzer Prize winner

When Sanchez's tirade came out, and after reading the entire text of the speech, I agreed.

Sanchez said, capsulated, we're in a pickle, it's a war that's not been waged without errors. Also that our biggest obstacle for victory is no unity for success in this country. This includes specific attacks on the media, Congress, the Pentagon and the WH.

And, without naming us directly, we the citizens.

Or, saying it more succinctly at the end of Danield Henninger's op-ed in the OpinionJournal today...

In sum, what Gen. Sanchez is describing here is a nation that is at risk and is in a state of disunity. Does disunity matter? He is saying that in war, it does.

In politics, a degree of disunity is normal. But in our time, partisan disunity has become the norm. The purpose of politics now is to thwart, to stop.

We may have underestimated how corrosive our disunity has been on the troops in Iraq, and how deeply it has damaged us.

This is hard to argue. Go to any blog thread on the Iraq war, Republican vs Democrat, and you see what Sanchez charged and Henninger illuminates in black and white. We are sniveling and sniping at each other while the enemy sits back, laughs, and waits for us to fold our poker hands and hand them the kitty - victory.

Arguing about the past - of which too few are intel-savvy enough to do so with any dexterity, and are parroting media sound bytes as their education - is worthless. Let the jury of history take care of the past and the "right or wrong" of the decision to enter Iraq.

Our focus should be on the future and our survival.. and that of our grandchildren. And the only way that is possible is to unite behind a strategy for victory, and not failure.

For as the World Islamic Front statement of war in 1998 tells us, redeployment from Iraq will not appease our enemy. Any presence of the US or western infidels (non Muslim) in any Arab land is the reason for war. And we saw this as true on 911.

WOT global strategy success on the horizon?

Ray Robison has one mesmerizing strategy analysis, "A Quiet Triumph May be Brewing", appearing in today's American Thinker. I purchased Mr. Robison's book, "Both in One Trench (v3)" April 9th of this year, and found it to be a riveting eye opener. Were we to make this a Poly-Sci mandatory read for our college attendees, we might find considerably less liberal anti-war, "Bush lied" nonsense spewed from our spoiled American youth, who've had it pretty darned easy in their lives.

Background on Ray Robison: An ISG member, who analyzed, digitized and archived the documents in the above referenced book under a subcontract with the Defence Intelligence Agency. He is currently a Military Operations Research Analyst with a major defense contractor, doing missile research analysis in Huntsville, Alabama. A former army officer with over ten years of military duty, Robison served in the Gulf War and Kosovo. He holds a B.S. in Biology (pre-medicine) from the University of Tampa.

The credentials of one of his co-authors, Richard Dunaway is no less impressive. A third co-author's identity is protected for security/safety reasons. "Sammi al Hadir", his nom de plume, lived in the ME, and now lives in the USA.

I've little to comment on personally since Robison's column can't be summarized. But his overview - linking the little publicized US strategy and battles in Afghanistan, their underlying work with the Pakistani govt, and even a possible reason for the desperate and thwarted terrorist plot by Germany and their arrest of a terror cell called into action - provide an awesome "big picture" of the composite workings of the WOT strategy on all theatres.... and just how it may be successfully splitting the AQ and jihadist rogue sectors in two at their very foundation. All in all, a military analyses our myopic media hounds - who see only daily suicide bombs and battles as a sign of defeat - could never fathom. It is a puzzle they are incapable of assembling.

If this global analysis of the composite strategy is correct, it may also be the reason that the leading Dem candidates are so reluctant to obligate to an outright troop withdrawal if they win the WH, as it's said that Bush is doing some one on one briefing with one or more of the candidates.

Excerpts won't cut it here. Instead of reprinting this in it's entirety, I'll provide the opening paragraphs, and insist you travel to the article in full to get the impact of his full military analysis.

There are signs that the global Islamic jihad movement is splitting apart, in what would be a tremendous achievement for American strategy. The center of the action is in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the very territory which is thought to harbor Usama, and from which Al Qaeda was able to launch 9/11. Capitalizing on existing splits, a trap was set and closed, and the benefits have only begun to be evident.

There were already signs of a split, but recent events strengthen that trend. In March and again in May of this year I reviewed relevant South Asian media reporting to predict that the global Islamic jihad movement was cracking up. That theory focused on a split between the leadership
of al Qaeda and the jihad groups that secure them in Pakistan such as the Taliban.

NBC News reports that a large operation is ongoing at the Tora Bora fortress in the mountains along the Afghani-Paki border and we may have just missed Usama bin Laden. I must admit that this caught me off guard. The US media has not been talking about a fight there at all, much less a large scale battle with al Qaeda leadership. So I perused one of my favorite anti-terror blogs The Jawa Report. Jawa has a link to another blog called the Internet Anthropologist which has been tracking what is going on in Tora Bora.

The Trap (continue reading by clicking here...)

Aftermath of Petraeus/Crocker... the big picture

For my part, it was painful and frustrating watching Congressmen and women behave so embarrasingly rude and close minded while interrogating General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. If I spoke in that tone, or used that attitude to anyone, my mother would slap me silly as a spoiled, petulant and disrespectful child.

But there's no oversight, discipline - nay, even apologetic regret - from the elected elite. As is usual with most Congressional hearings, everyone bolts when they get their own 5 minutes of fame and debasement, ignore the responses, and go elsewhere... anywhere other than the most important place they could be. God forbid they learn anything else by hanging around for others questions and answers.

I truly felt for the two prisoners of the hearing... having to repeat over and over the same points. Points, facts and issues that continually fell on deaf, (or perhaps selective hearing) biased ears. Congress has made up their minds, and nothing that Petraeus and Crocker can say will alter it. After all, our nation's security and Iraq's success are overtly triaged well behind their quest for the WH in 2008.

This AM, one would think we'd wake up to sundry newspaper headlines and talking head shows debating the Congressional interrogation. But noooo... and I wasn't the only one to notice the MSM apparent ban on front page news of the event.

The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Page nailed it perfectly.

So the two men best qualified to give an honest and comprehensive account of events in Iraq have marched through Congress to say--and show--that the surge is working and America's goals are still within reach. Yet it's a sign of the U.S. political debate that their evidence of progress seemed to make the headlines in none of our leading news sources yesterday.

Instead, the "news" seems to be that General David Petraeus has recommended that some 5,000 U.S. troops can rotate out of Iraq by the end of this year, and that U.S. forces might be able to return to pre-surge levels by next July if progress continues. That's no small matter, but it obscures the larger message of the testimony by the General and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. To wit: The U.S. is gaining ground in Iraq--often in the least expected of ways.

Yesterday, as the event was hard to ignore by the talking heads, the big issue was Petraeus refusing to speculate whether or not the nation was "safer" because we were in Iraq. Of all the data and information imparted, this is all they can focus on? A vague opinion that only God himself would know???

Why everyone insists that these two men, or anyone for that matter, must be fortune tellers is beyond me. There isn't one person on the planet that can say with certainty, nor prove, what would have happened if we did NOT go into Iraq. That path in time is lost to all, and we only have the path we have.

Certainly, had we not gone into Iraq, and those pesky chemicals from Saddam that showed up in the UN this past few weeks were applied elsewhere in the States, GWB would have had hell to pay for doing nothing... just as his predecessors did nothing. What if all that material moved out of the country in convoys were still in the hands of an intact Saddam dictatorship? Do we have any assurance none of that would be in the hands of a still alive Zarqawi - a Jordanian resident of Iraq since the late 1990s?

Or perhaps you're one of those who believe the convoys were filled with the palace patio furniture...

But guessing the what ifs is neither here nor there. To answer Lob Ball Chris Matthews and Olbermann (who's occasionally amusing, but really should have stuck with sportscasting), we'll never really know if we're safer because we're in Iraq. But we sure as hell know we won't be safer if we leave. And that's the point the duo tried to sing loud and clear to a disrespectful, pompous Congress.

More from WJS

As Mr. Crocker notes, these developments "are neither measured in benchmarks nor visible to those far from Baghdad." It's a point that seems to have been missed by Democrats on the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, as well as by such Republicans as John Warner and Dick Lugar. Their collective view seems to be that Iraq is a lost cause because the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has failed to achieve "national reconciliation," on the grounds that a series of legislative benchmarks have still not been met.

We don't know anyone who opposes "national reconciliation," though perhaps only on Capitol Hill would it be measured by the quantity of legislation passed rather than the quality of life for ordinary Iraqis. (In the U.S., these measures tend to be inversely correlated.) Yet "reconciliation" isn't something that precedes basic security. It follows from it.

Perfectly put. No progress until reconciliation, but reconciliation follows security. And Iraqis' progress to reconciliation is not measured by approved legislation. By the very standards Congress wishes to apply, the US Congress itself is an abject failure.

And speaking of the failures of the US Congress... Hand in hand with WSJ's assessment of the political circus that passed for a hearing yesterday is Tony Blankley's overview of the "War on Terror". You know what that is... that battle we must wage for survival that liberals and naysayers classify as a "bumper sticker"?

Fact is, we cannot neatly separate Iraq from this so called non existant war - Iraq, where radical Islam terrorists dash about, inciting riots between sects in order to wage the larger political, media and diplomatic battle against the West. Iraq, where most disciples of Bin Laden and ilk converge to wage jihad.

The battle is larger, and Tony Blankley slaps the truth right in our faces...

If we in the United States can't agree on the nature and magnitude of the threat, we aren't likely to agree on the means of protecting ourselves from it. Until a majority can be convinced that we face real danger from radical Islam, virulent political strife in Washington will continue to delay the design and implementation of an effective, united national defense.

The entire op-ed by Mr. Blankley is stellar... including a global view of the enemy we face. How convenient it is as a liberal election campaign talking point to address only Bin Laden and Afghanistan/Pakistan as the enemy battlefield. But it's a far cry from reality.

One more time - it wasn't just WMDs

Excellent recap of history from David Horowitz in FrontPageMagazine today. Naturally all will be discounted since Mr. Horowitz isn't a flaming anti-war liberal.

Always things to remember...

• The lack of responses to increasing terrorist attacks on US interest prior to 911
• The Iraqi Liberation Act in the mid 90s by Clinton and Congress, making it official foreign policy for regime change in Iraq
• All intelligence pointed to Saddam's desires and potential harboring of WMDs

WMDs were the most logical route to international cooperation from the UN/NATO since it was the basis of 17 Resolutions, repeatedly ignored and thwarted by Saddam. However in the Congressional authorization agreed to, only two of the 23 "where as" reasons were devoted to WMDs. Twelve were devoted to Saddam's consistent refusal to honor the UN Resolutions.

Over the years, the liberals anti-war crowd has managed to twist and skew the truths, as well as Congressional culpability, in the Iragi regime change for political gain. All done with the willing aid of a biased media, bent on seeing liberal return to power.

And they want a resurrection of a "fairness doctrine"??? (at least the House got one thing right in a bi-partisan way...) The absurdity of it all is just mind boggling. Repeated accusations, reprinted with gusto by the PC, agenda driven media, has proven their abilities to rewrite even recent history. Me thinks they point the finger of "unfair" at the last bastion of dissent.

Advance e-book available on Iraqi documents

Head over to Ray Robinson's site and take advantage of the pre-release of the book, Both in One Trench in e-form for $9.99.

About the authors:

Ray Robison is a former member of the Iraq Survey Group, former Army officer, Gulf War and Kosovo veteran. He currently works in army aviation and missile research.

Richard Dunaway is a fomer military intelligence officer who spent several years working in the field of homeland security. He currently works in a related field.

"Sammi's" biography is undisclosed for safety,

Beyond Iraq - a snapshot of reality

For the many that believe terrorism began with George W Bush and will magically end with Dem Party control, culminating in some nirvanic world peace with terrorists... here's a snapshot of reality.

This is posted specifically for those with the out of control passions. Those with whom you can't engage in an intelligent conversation without it degrading into meaningless personal insults, sans substance. Why? Because for most, their history, politics and current events knowledge begin in the [perceived] Clintonian utopia in the 90s, and ends with whatever today's headlines are in the MSM.

Heaven forbid they read UNMOVIC reports that detail Saddam's dump of proscribed missiles in a Netherlands junk yard - missiles acquired illegally after 1998 and moved out prior to the US coalition's entry in Mar 2003. Instead they take the short cut to current events education - merely accepting the latest sensationalist headline as the entire, encapsulated truth. Yet with today's journalistic boundaries muddied between op-ed and news, it's necessary to read the entire story to find the usual hidden disclaimer and additional facts that belie the screaming headlines. Have so many not figured out that news headlines are like advertising trailers and come ons?

It's the naive dreamer who believes the US is going to hell and a handbasket, underestimating the historic resilience of it's denizens. It's the uninformed and coddled citizen that thinks George Bush is the enemy, terrorists are "freedom fighters", and Iraq was much better for the Iraqis under Saddam. The history-tunnel-visioned believe that the Congressional war resolution was only about WMD's because that's what the media and Congressional campaign mongrels spoonfed them for political gain - and because most are too lazy to read (or re-read) the real document that distinctly outlines the other 23 some odd reasons Congress agreed upon.

WMDs were merely the foundation of the UN Security Council presentation, as it was relevant to the 17 UN resolutions Saddam ignored. Since the intel on Saddam's historic dance with WMDs was consistent between intel of many countries, it was an accepted fact world wide that Saddam has been and constituted a threat. And, of course, Congress wanted the UN/NATO involved.... heaven knows why. They are utterly worthless.

A brief jaunt around cyberspace reveals there's no dearth of the over-passionate-I-hate-everyone-who-isn't-for-withdrawal American. Those who feel that a faceless, Internet moniker is the free ticket for unabashed hatred and rudeness to any and everyone they don't agree with. Let's face it. Civility on the Internet is dead... regardless of party affiliation. The comments, insults and threats hurled by so many as they hide behind user names shows an unprecedented decline in social interaction with the info age generation - those born and bred on the new media.

Most of those hottest under the collar breed their venom on the past... the usual mantra of anti Bush complaints and daily round of scandalous accusations being dug up for political posturing. Personally I'd prefer that they, and our Congress, look forward... and please, to beyond March 2008. No media is asking Congress just what happens when the US is forced to leave prematurely by a poll driven Congress (with less approval rating than the President, BTW), only to see Iraq and ownership of it's vast resources fall to the governance and rule of radical factions.

However, if everyone insists on behaving tomorrow based on what happened yesterday, the least they could do is be aware of the larger picture of historic facts INRE the enemy who is out to destroy the western culture.

Just for the aforementioned, Victor Davis Hanson has a no nonsense snapshot of reality. And here's the summary:

The political Islamic hatred for the west and the power of the US didn't start with Bush, with Afghanistan, or Iraq. Nor did it start with Bin Laden's declaration of war during a May 1998 interview. Regardless of the outcome of Iraq... "cut the budget and run" as we did in Vietnam, or even a modicum of success with a free standing Iraq (who will always be looking over their shoulders)... political Islam will not go away.

You can make Hillary or Pelosi President for multiple terms, and they will subsequently be labeled the female Satan .... just as Clinton was the proclaimed Satan by Bin Laden prior to Bush. The quest for the Islamic Caliphate will march on despite who holds sway in Congress. They will continue to plot more 911s, and you can negotiate until you're blue in the face, but it won't make an iota of difference - as history has shown. Their goal of a Sharia law Caliphate, and our beliefs of freedom and self-governance for all, are differences too deep to be bridged.

Political Islam will never honor the Geneva Convention in warfare... just as Japan, N. Korea and Vietnam did not honor those lofty set of rules. In practice, the Geneva Convention applies only to the US, and it is only the US that will be held accountable if breached. Witness such with the current Iranian capture of British soldiers, and the tepid, not-so-fearsome statement of the UNSC. Not much in there about their violations of the Geneva Convention. In fact, other than a slap on the wrist in two paragraphs, the UN's condemnation is not only but a whisper, but valueless. Bizarre, no? Especially considering that the British ship was functioning under the UN mission umbrella.

But since the most verbal and vile of posters don't remember anything of historic substance prior to Bush & Clinton (perhaps because that's when the Internet became most accessible to all...), I suggest a slow read of Hanson's article to digest reality from one of those who have been around a bit longer to see history made.

The threat from radical Islamic terrorists will not vanish when President Bush leaves office, or if funds for the Iraq war are cut off in 2008.

A frequent charge is that we are bringing terrorists to Iraq. That is true in the sense that war always brings the enemy out to the battlefield. But it’s also false, since it ignores why killers like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (the late al Qaeda chief in Iraq), Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas (Palestinian terrorists of the 1980s), and Abdul Rahman Yasin (involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) were already in Saddam’s Iraq when we arrived.

Moreover, the unpopular war in Iraq did not create radical Islamists and their madrassas throughout the Middle East that today brainwash young radicals and pressure the region’s monarchies, theocracies and autocracies to provide money for training and weaponry. All that radicalism had been going on for decades — as we saw during the quarter-century of terrorism that led up to 9/11. And rioting, assassination, and death threats over artistic expression in Europe have nothing to do with Iraq.

Right now, most al Qaeda terrorists are being trained and equipped in the Pakistani wild lands of Waziristan to help the Taliban reclaim Afghanistan and spread jihad worldwide. These killers pay no attention to the fact that our efforts in Afghanistan are widely multilateral. They don’t care that our presence there is sanctioned by NATO, or involves the United Nations, or only came as a reaction to 9/11.

These radical Islamists gain strength not because we “took our eye off Afghanistan” by being in Iraq, but because Pakistan’s strongman, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, can’t or won’t do anything about al Qaeda’s bases in his country. And neither Bush nor Nancy Pelosi quite knows how to pressure such an unpredictable nuclear military dictatorship.

The Iraq war has certainly sharpened our relationship with Iran, but, of course, it’s also not the cause of our tensions with Tehran. For decades, the Iranian government has subsidized Hezbollah, which during the 1980s and 1990s murdered Americans from Saudi Arabia to Beirut. It was not the current Iranian lunatic president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but an earlier more “moderate” president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who remarked, in 2001, that “one bomb is enough to destroy all Israel.”

So Iraq is only one recent theater, albeit a controversial one, in an ongoing global struggle. This larger conflict arose not from the Iraqi invasion of 2003, but from earlier radical Muslim rage at the modern globalized world, the profits and dislocations from Middle East oil, and Islamic terrorism that ranges worldwide from Afghanistan to Thailand.

continue reading...

To Our Americans Serving In Iraq

Latest YouTube posting (below) from Bob Parks of Black & Right. He runs the gamut... asking why we don't hear about the terrorist body count to historic quotes from today's "Out of Iraq" crowd.

Granted, the "anti's" will just parrot the usual mantra... "there aren't any WMDs". The wild notion that because there wasn't a waiting stash of evidence for the troops in March of 2003, it never existed. The naesayers' naivity in assuming there would be remaining evidence after several months warning of impeding invasion is staggering.

Saddam had plenty of time to remove questionable and sensitive materials, AND people, prior to the coalition's entry. His relocation of vast quantities of something has been noted and substantiated by UNMOVIC and US satellite photos of multiple caravans to various borders. A bunch of Sony Playstations perhaps? Feh...

Supporting the same theory of relocated underground WMD program evidence is Georges Sada's book, Saddam's Secrets, who writes the evidence was moved to Syria and other countries.

Needless to say, what we don't know about Saddam's progress in reconstituting his WMD programs could fill a book. But with videos and recordings from his trial, the OFF scandal/monies, and documents obtained after we entered Iraq, we know of his quest to do so. Thus it would be foolish to assume "there never was any" merely because we have not found a nuke mounted on a missile.

Bob's 10 minute video has much to say, and is well founded in fact. He is eloquent, and produces these and his columns on his own dime because he cares. And I always enjoy his perspectives and presentation. Enjoy.

Media skewing news, & skewing public opinion

Alan Dowd's "Blaming the Messenger" column in FrontPage today says it all for me. A veritable check list of perpetuated media lies, misrepresentations, and half truths on Iraq issues from "there were no WMD's" to the daily bombardment of bomb stories - and how the constant drumbeat of bad news controls public opinion on the war.

All resources he used to compile this truth vs reporting check list are provided at the bottom. And it's one impressive "must read" from beginning to end.

***************************************************

In the meantime, those wacky Vermont State legislators in Leahy'land obviously have been eating up all these media lies. Apparently they've concocted some resolution in the VT General Assembly that proposes impeaching Bush. And more than two dozen towns in the state have their own versions that, if implemented, would impeach everyone and install Ms. Pelosi as our CIC.

Deborah Bucknam, an attorney in Walden, spent 15 hours researching their allegations, and has declared: "Every single one of the "facts" upon which the resolutions are based is false and misleading." Yup... sound like they used the media printed reports as their fact-finding Bible to construct their resolution.

Ms. Bucknam's final paragraph in her Burlington Free Press guest op-ed (linked above) pulls no punches on what the VT'ers are attempting to do.

Thus Vermont Democrats and Progressives are supporting a resolution to overturn a duly elect national government based on allegations that constitute a sham. Vermont Democrats and Progressives have constructed a mythology to support their hatred for their political opponent, President Bush, and are seeking to overturn the will of the electorate based on that mythology. They should all be held to account for this extraordinary assault on our democratic institutions.

Good to hear at least least one sane voice from that state. I was beginning to worry what was in the maple syrup!

Not just WMDs - a revisting of Congressional history

Victor Davis Hanson has an article today titled "Anatomy of Iraq: How did we get to this baffling scenario?" that not only is a worthy read, but points out the Joint Resolution in Oct 2002, H. J. RES . 114 agreed upon by Congress, recognized far more reasons than merely WMD to authorize military action.

There were numerous reasons to remove Saddam — 23, according to the Congress that authorized the war — but the administration privileged just one, the sensible fear of weapons of mass destruction. That was legitimate and understandable, and would prove effective so long as either a postwar weapons-trove turned up or the war and its aftermath finished without a hitch.

Unfortunately neither proved to be the case. So with that prime rationale discredited, the partisan Congress suddenly reinvented itself in protesting that it had really voted for war on only one cause, not 23. And when the news and evidence both went bad, that lone reason was now pronounced null and void and hardly a basis for war.

Indeed, the WMD argument was the primary focus as it was the most logical "in" to plead for the UN's Security Council to get off their duffs, and finally start doing something more tangible than fingershaking at Saddam for repeated offenses.

And, as Hanson put it, that also didn't prove to be the case. No way the UN would agree to removing Saddam, or to take action for his refusal to obey the UN's resolutions. Even other western nations backed away. Why? Some for money... not excluding the UN's infamous Oil for Food debacle. And also for that "let Mickie eat it... he'll eat anything" syndrome. No one wanted to be responsible for removing Saddam. So it was "let the US do it". Again from Hanson's article:

(Sixth) Europeans who profited from Saddam probably wanted Saddam gone, but wanted the U.S. to do it. In the same manner they profit from Iran, yet want Iran quieted and the U.S. to do it. In the same manner they want terrorists rounded up, jailed, and renditioned, but the U.S. to do it.

All the while a Chirac abroad was whipping up the Arab Street, or a Schroeder was awarding financial credits to Germans doing business with the Iranian theocracy, or a Spain or an Italy or a Germany was indicting the very American military and intelligence officers who protected them.

The European philosophy on the Iraq war was to play the anti-American card to envious European crowds all the way up to that delicate point of irrevocably offending the United States. Then, but only then, pull back abruptly with whimpers about NATO, the Atlantic relationship, and Western solidarity, just before a riled America gets wise and itself pulls away from these ingrates for good.

But back to those 23 other reasons Hanson mentions. We coddled Americans tend to conveniently forget recent history, and our short term memories are encouraged by a Congress who skillfully uses research-deficient journalists to aid and abet their desperate attempts to rewrite history in order to save political face.

So what were some of those other reasons Congress loves to ignore? From the resolution itself, linked above.

"....continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;" Note... we've found more than a few weapons stashes that were supposed to not be there. As for the terrorists, among others, Zarqawi had been in Iraq since 1998, and was also recovering in a Baghdadi hospital after his injuries fighting in Afghanistan. However AQ was not the only terror organization that rolled thru Iraq's revolving door. ANd as far as "actively seeking"? Even a NYT's article on Jan 9th, 2007 about the Saddam trial had tapes that made it clear Saddam had, and was pursuing, and underground nuke program.

"... Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;" For all the feel good talk about Darfur's genocide, do they even remember Iraq's mass murders and genocide? Or is that knowledge been exorcised from their minds?

"...the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;" Yes, Saddam's unarguable intents are also tossed carelessly aside.

"...Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;" His arrogance towards the UNSC... has that too gone away?

And here's where they were sentient enough to realize that a Saddam who thwarted sanctions, UN resolutions and acquired WMDs on the black market was more than capable of providing them to terrorists for a price.

"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;"

But perhaps my favorite one is where they underscore that this has been their policy since Clinton/Albright days...

"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;"

For those who now stand before a microphone saying "I didn't vote to go to war" or "the President doesn't have the right to go to war", I'd love to have them reread the second to the last paragraph of the Joint Resolution.

"Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40);"

What was that Pelosi was saying that Bush would have to ask Congress before any action... not that he's planning any... against Iran? The woman is obviously senile.

And while I'm at it.... repeat after me over and over...

THE IRAQI MISSION IS TO HAVE A SELF-SUSTAINING and FREE IRAQ WHO IS A PARTNER IN WORLD TRADE and A WILLING SUPPLIER OF INTEL FOR THE WAR ON TERROR.

Is that so difficult for people to absorb and retain? Hard to believe that, when asked this direct question from David Letterman, McCain couldn't even articulate this simple and obvious goal. Not a good moment for one who wants to be CIC in these difficult times.

I have to thank Mr. Hanson for this... because he made me look back at the text of the Joint Resolution. And there is much there has nothing to do with "made up intelligence". But then... that's not convenient for Congress and their low approval numbers, is it?

Saddam a Victim? More debunking of myths

Payoffs Link to Terrorism
David Marr, The Sydney Morning Herald

The liberal and media efforts to smear the Bush Administration at every turn consistantly use Saddam and his "illegal" removal from power as the victim in their play book plot. The brutal dictator's history and intents are played down, facts totally ignored because it interferes with their goals.

Over and over, despite the abandoned proscribed missiles in a Netherlands junk yard, presence of various nerve gases, report after report that Saddam's attempts to revive his WMD programs by either thwarting sanctions (Oil for Food) or getting them removed, we are innudated with history-deficient journalists parroting "there were no WMD's".

I'm not sure what it takes for the world to wake up and smell the coffee. But this little ditty from the Sydney Herald is just one more piece of evidence that Saddam is not a victim of US thuggery, and that he was doing just as the Bush Administration says.... deeply involved in terrorism.

AWB's kickbacks to Saddam Hussein may have financed terrorism, according to the final, confidential submission of counsel assisting the Cole inquiry into the oil-for-food scandal.

This is one of many damning conclusions contained in the 1300-page submission by John Agius, SC, being examined by lawyers representing AWB and more than a dozen of its past and present managers and directors.

Mr Agius is understood to conclude that AWB misled the Federal Government and the United Nations, and that key AWB figures may have committed criminal and corporate offences in paying kickbacks to Saddam's regime in breach of UN sanctions.

The submission singles out for criticism the former chairman, Trevor Flugge, and the former managing director, Andrew Lindberg. But it also makes adverse findings against the AWB managers who first set up the kickback scheme, which funnelled almost $300 million to Iraq disguised as trucking fees.

snip

While the "trucking fees" involved some hundreds of millions of dollars, it is understood the toughest criticism from Mr Agius involves the $US8 million Tigris transaction. Evidence before the Cole inquiry revealed that AWB executives and the head of Tigris Petroleum, Norman Davidson Kelly, siphoned $US8 million from the UN Food Fund. This was part of an old deal designed to help BHP gain access to a huge new oil field in Iraq. Lawyers for BHP-Billiton are currently examining.

snip

The lawyers have only a fortnight to reply to Mr Agius's findings. It is understood they will rely heavily on claims that the conduct of AWB and its managers during the oil-for-food program was not misleading because both the Commonwealth and the UN knew about the trucking fees and turned a blind eye to any breaches of sanctions.

Not only is this another "heads up" that Saddam was not the innocent bystander in the terrorist world as currently portrayed, but that the only defense the accused corporations have is that the UN fully cooperated with Saddam's active thwarting of sanctions by turning a convenient blind eye.

New news? Heck no. Ignored facts about the UN, the OFF scandal and it's use by Saddam? Absolutely. How long can the world look at history thru tunnel vision?