Two items from two sides of the ocean which display the same naive attitude among leadership toward the war against global Jihad.
Far left wing Barack Obama is criticizing right wing policies for letting Osama bin Laden slip away.
Meanwhile, far left wing policies in Britain which we criticize here often are intentionally letting Osama’s right hand man slip away.
That’s right, Al Qaeda’s #1 in Europe is about to be set loose. But it’s OK, because Qatada is only allowed to be out among the British people – many of them his desired victims, no doubt – for two hours a day. He’s also been sternly warned against contacting his pal Osama bin Laden. Whether he’s also been barred from publishing a blog on my.barackobama.com was not mentioned.
Barack is right. There’s no use arguing over whose policies will keep this country safer. Clearly the left’s policies of erring on the side of terrorists’ liberties and backing away from confrontations with state sponsors of terrorism are the best way to safeguard a nation’s security.
Comments
Print This Post
The Institute for Defense Analysis recently released the first volume from the Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) look at Saddam’s terrorist connections, which set out to review over 600,000 documents captured following the fall of Saddam’s regime. The media, predictably, ignored the totality of the report’s findings and choose instead to focus on one single sentence: “This study found no ’smoking gun’ (i.e, direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.” This lead to a flurry of media headlines as war critics rushed to be the first to breathlessly denounce President Bush, yet again.
From NRO:
ABC: Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda
CNN: Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says
New York Times: Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie
Washington Post: Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link
AFP: No link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda: Pentagon study
McClatchy: Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida
The media seems to be operating under the false assumption that Al Qaeda is the only terrorist group we are interested in. A more honest headline would have said something like: “Report finds Saddam supported Islamic terrorism,” since that’s what it actually said. Here are some quotes:
“Saddam’s interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations.”
We aren’t at war with just Al-Qaeda.
Hmm, sounds like that should make Saddam a reasonable target in a “War on [Islamic] Terror.” Too bad the media and so many on the left seem to be under the mistaken impression that we’re really just in a war on Al-Qaeda, as if no other terrorist organization has ever attacked us, or wants to (they have, and they do). Back to the quotes:
“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.”
“Saddam’s regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq’s long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos. One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.”
“Evidence of Saddam’s continuing interest and support for global terrorist activities is found in a 2002 annual report of the IIS M8 Directorate of Liberation Movements.”
“The IIS hosted thirteen conferences in 2002 for a number of Palestinian and other organizations, including delegations from the Islamic Jihad Movement and the Director General for the Popular Movement for the Liberation of al-Ahwaz.”
“In return for financial support, Palestinian terror groups, particularly Hamas, were willing to do Saddam’s bidding. Aftr the September 11th attacks on the United States, a Palestinian representative informed the Iraqis that Hamas had thirty-five armed terror cells around the world, mingled with refugee populations. These cells were in ‘France, Sweden, Denmark, and other places.’ The Palestinian boasted that these cells could shake America and force the United States to back out if it ever invaded Iraq.”
“Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.”
“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.”
Obviously, the fact that no ties were found between Saddam and Al-Qaeda is newsworthy. But focusing on only that, and pretending like it’s the most important aspect of this report, does a disservice to the truth. We aren’t at war with just Al-Qaeda. There were a lot of important findings in this report that have been largely ignored. The overarching theme is clear: Saddam was willing to utilize, fund, support or train Islamic terrorist organizations when it suited his purposes. Removing regimes engaging in such behavior is arguably of strategic interest to the United States.
But don’t take my word for it, read it yourself:
Print This Post
Al-Reuters is up to their usual tricks, this time regarding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The casual observer might not notice the inherent bias in this report, but to my all-seeing eye it is all too obvious. It begins with the title, “Pakistan accuses al-Qaeda of killing Bhutto.” Generally speaking an accusation is most noteworthy when the accused denies the offense. When the accused admits guilt, however, one would think that fact would overshadow the accusation. Al-Qaeda has taken credit for killing Bhutto. Not only does the headline imply otherwise, but that fact is entirely omitted from the article. Rather, the article plays up conflict between Bhutto’s supporters and Musharraf and all but ignores al-Qaeda involvement:
Pakistan accused al Qaeda of killing opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, whose assassination has plunged the nuclear-armed country into crisis and triggered bloody protests.
But Bhutto’s party dismissed the official explanation and said President Pervez Musharraf’s embattled administration was trying to cover up its failure to protect her.
…”We have intelligence intercepts indicating that al Qaeda leader Baitullah Mehsud is behind her assassination,” Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said on Friday.
…But Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party rejected the claim. A spokesman said the government must show solid evidence.
…Many mourners chanted slogans against Musharraf and the United States, which backs the former general in the hope he can maintain stability in the face of Islamist violence and relies on Pakistan as an ally against al Qaeda and Afghanistan’s Taliban.
Musharraf, who seized power in a military coup in 1999 but left the army last month to become a civilian president, has appealed for calm and blamed Islamist militants for the killing.
But many accused him of failing to protect Bhutto, who died in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, home of the Pakistani army.
Even the mention of the previous attempt on Bhutto says merely that “The government said al Qaeda was also behind that attack.” And then goes on to highlight that “she also had enemies in other quarter including among the powerful intelligence services and some allies of Musharraf.” Failing, of course, to point at the that Pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI) is riddled with Islamist supporters who regularly provide assistance to al-Qaeda. This is the same intelligence service that founded the Taliban. The informed reader, however, is left to believe such intelligence officials are simply another part of Musharraf’s government, when the fact is that he has himself worked to rid his government of these sympathizers, which triggered several al-Qaeda attempts on his life.
This is agenda journalism at its ugliest.
Comments Print This Post
The assassination of pro-democracy reformer and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has threatened to thrust Pakistan into severe civil unrest and has everyone asking one question: Who is behind this attack?
Bhutto’s supporters seem to be reflexively laying blame on their dictatorial rival, Pervez Musharraf. Yet despite the fact that Bhutto was threatening Musharraf’s hold on power, it is unlikely that he would think an assassination would make his position better, rather than worse. The real winners here are the Islamic extremists who can now hope to take advantage of the destabilized political situation. Al-Qaeda already tried to kill Bhutto once and they have also claimed responsibility for Thursday’s attack (Hat tip: Say Anything):
A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
?We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,? Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.
It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October.
Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi?s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto.
If Bhutto’s supporters can set aside their anger at Musharraf, some of it certainly justified, and realize they share a common enemy in radical Islamic jihad, they can perhaps make some headway in advancing the ideals Bhutto’s represented. At the least, it would go a long way in preventing the region from sliding further away from their reformist vision as it would if radicals gained power.
Comments Print This Post
There’s plenty of media buzz about some select leaks regarding the new National Intelligence Estimate that claims Al-Qaeda is resurging. What’s driving this? Pakistan.
The primary development that has allowed all this to happen, U.S. officials say, was the peace agreement signed last year between the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf and pro-Taliban tribal leaders in the remote region of North Waziristan. The withdrawal of Pakistani troops under that agreement gave Al Qaeda leaders new freedom to operate with relative impunity, officials said. “Clearly, they are resurgent,” said one senior U.S. intelligence official about Al Qaeda. (The official, who is familiar with the NIE’s findings, asked not to be identified because the document remains classified.)
Previous: With Friends Like These
Comments Print This Post
Exclusive: Suicide Bomb Teams Sent to U.S., Europe
Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.
A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions.
The tape shows Taliban military commander Mansoor Dadullah, whose brother was killed by the U.S. last month, introducing and congratulating each team as they stood.
“These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from faraway places,” Dadullah says on the tape. “Why shouldn’t we go after them?”
Wait, these terrorists are mad about Afghanistan? Doesn’t this tend to undercut that common argument of the left, that Iraq is uniquely responsible for creating more terrorists, while Afghanistan was a perfectly acceptable military action? Seeing as how the left is so quick to proclaim that they supported Afghanistan, and that these terrorists are using Afghanistan to justify attacks on Western targets, does that not now make the left as responsible for new terrorists as they argue supporters are the war in Iraq are? Of course it does, by their reasoning.
But we also know that their reasoning is bunk. Terrorists give all kinds of justifications for their actions that they know will be parroted in western media outlets across the globe. Their goal with such statements is to get us to question our tactics and erode our will to fight. The reality is that these suicide bombers exist because they have been indoctrinated by an extremist cult since birth. Their inauguration date into the world of suicide bombers was set long before we ever stepped foot into Afghanistan. Sitting around whining that military action “breeds terrorism” shows fundamental ignorance of history. Putting our national head in the sand has invited far more terrorism to date than taking the fight to the enemy. We were attacked because we were perceived as weak. Unfortunately, due to certain useful idiots here at home, we are still perceived as weak. Our projection of weakness, and not our military actions, is what will continue to drive terrorist attacks against this country.
Comments Print This Post
“Three years after the Madrid bombings, the threat is believed to be growing as militants reorganize.”
Unpossible! Surely the terrorists were appeased when Spain turned tail and retreated from Iraq. Apparently not:
Inside a squat, red-brick courthouse here, defendants testified about the casual ease with which they obtained dynamite and then traded it to alleged terrorists in exchange for hashish.
. . . The government had hoped the trial of 29 people accused in continental Europe’s deadliest terrorist attack would console Spaniards by showing them that the culprits had been brought to justice. Instead, it has served as a reminder of how great the risks remain for a country that is still healing.
. . .Maghreb-based networks remain the most serious threat to Spain in terms of Islamic extremism, law enforcement officials said this week. They said militants had begun to set up a centralized command and a string of training camps in southern Algeria and northern Mali, and have launched recruiting efforts targeting their brethren who live in Spain.
. . .Last month, Ayman Zawahiri, the purported No. 2 in Al Qaeda, called on Islamic radicals in the Maghreb to “raise the flag of jihad” over North Africa and Spain “to once again feel the soil of Al Andalus beneath your feet,” according to transcripts. Al Andalus refers to that part of Spain controlled by Muslim forces for seven centuries until their expulsion by a Roman Catholic army in 1492.
It was not the first time that Zawahiri or other Al Qaeda leaders had spoken of liberating formerly Muslim land “from Iraq to Al Andalus,” but officials here say the allusions have increased in recent months, indicating that Spain is seen as part of the endgame and not just a country to be attacked along the way.
The world is the endgame. When will this simple truism permeate the skulls of journalists and government officials?
Spain is going to learn the hard way that weakness begets aggression. Three years ago the Spaniards sent a message to the world, loud and clear, that said, “We are unprepared to stand against a determined and vicious enemy, come and intimidate us into submission!” Their call is being answered.
Comments Print This Post
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration’s options.
Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition’s goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.
I’m just glad they decided on a course of action. I, for one, would hate to think the Democrats were agonizing over how best to wage their war against the United States. It’s of little surprise that in their time of desperation they would turn to the long used tactics of our enemies for guidance. If a slow-bleed can work for Al Qaeda, why not the Democrats? With constant news like this, one almost can’t help but conclude the two groups share a common goal.
Comments Print This Post
IAEA finds traces of plutonium in Iran
International Atomic Energy experts have found unexplained plutonium and enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran and have asked Tehran for an explanation, an IAEA report said Tuesday.
The report prepared for next week’s meeting of the 35-nation IAEA also faulted Tehran for not cooperating with the agency’s attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran’s nuclear program that have lead to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms. As well, the four-page paper made available to The Associated Press confirmed that Iran continues uranium enrichment experiments in defiance of the U.N. Security Council.
Of course, we already know what Iran is going to say about it. Ahmadinejad:
“By God’s grace our powerful nation will continue its path and the enemy cannot do a damn thing on the nuclear issue.”
Meanwhile, Iran is working to gain control over Al Qaeda, who just happens to be plotting a nuclear attack on the UK.
Comments Print This Post
Analysis: Al-Qaida in chat rooms
The German government wants to spend roughly $165 million over the next three years to combat Internet-related terrorism activities, in the wake of an arrest of a terror suspect who used the Web to disseminate al-Qaida videos.
It was last week’s biggest news in Germany: Police Tuesday near Osnabrueck, in western Germany, arrested a 36-year-old terrorism suspect, identified only as Ibrahim R., after they had searched his apartment and computer.
. . .Police had surveyed him for more than a year and found that he downloaded and disseminated audio and video messages by al-Qaida bosses Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Officials said he likely didn’t have direct contacts to al-Qaida, but what he shared with the terror network was a profound hatred against the United States and the West, hatred that he discharged onto the Web.
Rolf Tophoven, a German terrorism expert, recently told United Press International that the Internet, used for “propaganda and inciting purposes,” has become the Islamists’ most important recruitment tool.
If this man had been arrested in America, the ACLU would be springing into action to defend his “free speech” rights.
Comments Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science, but please don't hold that against me.
