Al-Qaida No. 2 mocks American 'failure'

[mikesilvia]

Doesn't matter if it is a terrorist or a Democratic politician, we can always count on them rooting for the U.S. to fail in our wars. Always great when Harry Reid and other leading Democrats bring out the #2 terrorist in the world to agree with them.

A new video of al-Qaida's No. 2 leader released on Saturday mocks President Bush and U.S. legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying the bill would rob the group's fighters of the chance to kill more Americans.

"And lest Bush worry, I congratulate him on the success of his security plan, and I invite him on the occasion for a glass of juice, but in the cafeteria of the Iraqi parliament in the middle of the Green Zone," al-Zawahri said.

This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap," al-Zawahri said, according to a transcript released by the monitoring group SITE. The bill is evidence of American "failure and frustration," he added.

"We ask Allah that they (U.S. troops) only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson," he said.

He made no mention of Bush vetoing the bill on Thursday — an indication the video may have been made beforehand.

Al-Zawahri encouraged minorities around the world to join the holy war, or jihad.
"Al-Qaida is not merely for the benefit of Muslims," he said. "That's why I want blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world."

When I read the quotes I can't tell if it's Harry Reid, Nacy Pelosi or Al-Zawahri speaking. There is literally no difference between their words and hopes, both state we have failed in Iraq and both want us to pull out. Both mock the President and both hope for failure in Iraq for political gain.

[tnopud42]

Exactly what is Bush's responsibility in this war? Is he accountable for anything?

It's funny how people on the right will chide people who question this administration by claiming they are simply being anti-Bush, but yet do the same thing by continually blaming any failures in Iraq on the Dems.

[mikesilvia]

Did I blame the Iraq war on the Democrats?

[tnopud42]

I don't believe that was my statement. I made an observation without reference to you. But you're more than welcome to answer the first part of my post.

[mikesilvia]

Exactly what is Bush's responsibility in this war? Is he accountable for anything?

President Bush (notice his job title) and the Senate voted to go to war in Iraq. President Clinton in 1998 made it official U.S. policy of the United States to enact regime change in Iraq. So, President Bush is responsible with the U.S. senate for getting us involved in Iraq. This is not "Bush's War" this the the U.S.'s war that the vast majority of senators voted for. The Democrats, much like they did in Vietnam, will be responsible for the failure in Iraq if they cut off funding. The killing fields that were the responsibility of the Democrats in 1973 and on were due to a Democratic President that got us involved, another Democratic President that escalated the war, then when it was tough, a Democratic Senate that cut off funding to Vietnam and Cambodia after we withdrew. It wasn't enough to withdraw, the Democrats had to stop sending money and weapons to Vietnam so our friends couldn't even defend themselves. The Democrats would love to do this in Iraq then blame President Bush.

Democrats have a long tradition of starting something with another country, then when it gets tough and the polls turns, turning their back on friends and having millions die.Terorists and dictators wait for U.S. elections to see if Democrats are in office before the do anything.

Back on subject. Is their anything different between the goals of the Democrats and the terrorists on Iraq? Both want to show the President Bush is a failure and both want us out of Iraq. Both will stop at nothing to attain these goals. Sounds like a great alliance to me. If terrorist could vote in U.S. elections 100% of them would vote for Democrats because they know which side is weak on fighting terrorism. They would like to go back to the Clinton years where they could bomb the World Trade center, the Cole, Khobar towers, U.S. Embassies in Africa and so on, with just a few cruise missiles in retaliation.

Or maybe we can do like John Kerry suggested and just give nuclear material to Iran.

[tnopud42]

Is there suppose to be some significance to your parenthetical comment?

SUMMARY:

(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.

I don't see anything in that Bill that states we must invade Iraq. I see measures the U.S. would take to achieve regime change but no mention of military invasion.

As for the Congresional vote on the Iraqi Resolution you failed to mention 21 Democratic Senators voted against it as did 126 Democrats in the House.

In none of the often quoted statements of prominent Democrats prior to 9-11 do you find anyone calling for an all out invasion of Iraq.

American involvement in Viet Nam began under Eisenhower. South Vietnam had a standing army. Quite different from Iraq. Kennedy's intent was to advise and not commit land forces. While Johnson escalated the war militarily, Nixon prolonged it with his Vietnamization plan. Still waiting for the "Domino Theory" to take effect in that part of the world.

Funds won't be cut off and you know it. If Bush continues to veto legislation, the Democrats don't have enough votes to override it and you know that, too.

Most authorities past and present, military and civilian, state that approximately 10% of those fighting in Iraq are terrorists. In fact many of the terrorists are not only having to fight U.S. forces but the various sects presnt in Iraq.

"Democrats have a long tradition of starting something with another country, then when it gets tough and the polls turns, turning their back on friends and having millions die." Examples please. The operative words there are "long tradition."

[tnopud42]

Those responsible for the bombing of the WTC were caught and imprisoned. This event occured 30+ days into Clinton's presidency. Maybe Bush, Sr. should have been more alert to a terrorist threat.

The Cole occured in Oct. Clinton was out of office by January. Even so, those responsible were imprisoned or killed.

The Khobar Towers attack was supported by Iran. Clinton chose not to act much as Bush has chosen not to act against Iran in the nuclear problem of today.

[mikesilvia]

I don't see anything in that Bill that states we must invade Iraq. I see measures the U.S. would take to achieve regime change but no mention of military invasion.

What part of, “Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.” Don’t you understand? So we just pray and hope that Saddam would leave? 10+ years of sanctions did nothing to remove Saddam.

As for the Congresional vote on the Iraqi Resolution you failed to mention 21 Democratic Senators voted against it as did 126 Democrats in the House.

Let’s put it this way. President Bush received almost 80 votes. You need 66 votes to change the U.S. constitution or over ride a Presidential veto. This means overwhelmingly the Senate supported the war, as did most of your Senators trying to become the Democratic nominee for President today. President Bush had the votes to change the constitution, but he didn’t have the support to go to war?

I will get to the rest when I have time.

[tnopud42]

Which part do you not understand? The Bill does not state nor require military action. Do you believe governments are only toppled by invasion? As for sanctions we could go on and on about "oil for food" and onsight inspectors, but the fact remains, that until Bush came to the American people and said Saddam was part of the "Axis of Evil" few if any people considered invading Iraq. When 9-11 occured I heard no one saying we must invade Iraq. The two had nothing to do with each other. It was Bush and this administration which tried to connect dots that weren't there. He squandered the support of the world and the American people by going into Iraq when all our resources should have been spent in Afghanistan.

As an aside, do you honestly believe Bush is a great man? We can argue the politics of the past 6 years forever, but I simply do not see anything in this president that warrants admiration. What could have been his major legacy - the War on Terror - has degenerated into an ill conceived hodge podge. Living in Texas most of my life I am quite familiar with his background, with his shortcomings and accomplishments (such as they are). I don't see anything that indicates he will become the standard bearer for conservatives and Republicans once he leaves office. Quite the opposite, I feel those in his party will try to distance themselves from him. He is hardly a Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich on the banquet circuit.