« The Bodadpaf (or: "Beldar's obligatory disclaimer about Dems' patriotism and foolishness") | Main | Richard Viguerie's back-handed endorsement of Fred Thompson »

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Al Qaeda's plan to win the war by winning in the U.S. Capitol

Once again, as so often, I find myself on exactly the same wavelength as Andy McCarthy:

When you let them have Iraq, like we let them have Afghanistan in the 1990s, they tend to want Manhattan.

Please read the whole thing. Brother McCarthy — the former federal prosecutor who's successfully prosecuted Islamic terrorists, yet who articulates so well and consistently why the war on Islamic terrorism isn't a primarily a matter of criminal law — brings you the detailed and very specific al Qaeda quotes that need to be hurled into the teeth of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their ilk (bodadpaf) on the Capitol floor.

That's exactly where al Qaeda has always intended to win this war, and the only place where they can. Unfortunately, their chances there look better than ever — especially if, as also seems increasingly and distressingly likely, a large handful of congressional Republicans go along.

Posted by Beldar at 07:14 PM in Global War on Terror, Politics (2007) | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Al Qaeda's plan to win the war by winning in the U.S. Capitol and sent a trackback ping are listed here:

» New Intel: Al Qaeda Cell In U.S. Or On Its Way from Hyscience

Tracked on Jul 10, 2007 8:09:23 PM

» New Intel: Al Qaeda Cell In U.S. Or On Its Way from Freedoms Zone

Tracked on Jul 10, 2007 8:13:55 PM

» McCain's Speech On Iraq from Flopping Aces

Tracked on Jul 10, 2007 8:19:48 PM


(1) vnjagvet made the following comment | Jul 10, 2007 10:46:10 PM | Permalink

Unfortunately, Bin Laden and his crew were educated during the Vietnam war.

They know the world view among our "intellectual elite" and are playing it like a violin.

It is like Al Q knows the talking points before they are generated. I do not suggest that they are writing them, but rather that they have devised a pitch perfect message that resonates with dominant left within academia and other areas of intellectual influence.

I was strongly against John Kerry because his world outlook was too receptive to the message that Bin Laden was preaching.

I am strongly against the Democratic anti-war leadership for the same reason.

Blinking did not serve us well in Vietnam after more than 10 times the casualties and three times the length of the conflict.

It will not serve us well in Iraq either.

(2) steve sturm made the following comment | Jul 11, 2007 7:45:49 AM | Permalink

McCarthy is off a bit, we didn't let 'them' have Afghanistan, at least if them is Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was allowed to operate out of Afghanistan by the Taliban who 'had' Afghanistan, and our fight with the Taliban wasn't with them as much as it was with their refusal to take action against Bin Laden (imagine, for a second, how things would have been different if, right after 9/11, the Taliban had told us that they were appalled at what had happened and were determined to get rid of Al Qaeda).

Along those lines, if we leave Iraq, Al Qaeda won't 'have' Iraq anymore than they had Afghanistan. Whichever faction ends up in control of Iraq may allow Al Qaeda to operate, but then again, they may not do so.

The reason I think this distinction important is that we need to remember our fight is with Al Qaeda, not with the factions battling over control of Iraq. Should the faction(s) that control Iraq take action against Al Qaeda, we shouldn't care which faction is in control. And if that faction does as the Taliban did, and give Al Qaeda room to operate, we can, as we could have done in Afghanistan, starting with Clinton, gone after Al Qaeda in Iraq without having to go in and topple another government.

Thus, the path for us to follow in Iraq is not to get involved in taking sides among the factions, but simply to going after Al Qaeda... whether they operate in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere in the world. We don't need the permission of the respective government to go after terrorists operating in their midsts. And we don't need to overthrow governments to go after Al Qaeda.

(3) Gary Denton made the following comment | Jul 11, 2007 11:40:18 AM | Permalink

Just what part of Iraq would Al Qaeda have?

Kurds and Shias hate them and they have very limited support among the Sunnis. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq under Saddam and the "al Qaeda in Iraq" group there now just took the name and has very limited contact with the al Qaeda outside.

If we quit occupying a land where we don't belong, terrorists who want revenge for dead friends and relatives would be greatly reduced.

(4) Patrick R. Sullivan made the following comment | Jul 11, 2007 7:05:49 PM | Permalink

The Afghanis hated bin Laden and his Arab brothers too, but they got to operate freely.

OT: Beldar, After watching the Conyers Justice Freak Show today, I think there's an opportunity waiting for you to exploit in DC. Offer to teach committee members how to question--deposition style--witnesses.

The Republicans had Joe Wilson sitting in front them with no place to hide, but no one had a clue how to frame questions that he couldn't weasel around, or filibuster.

(5) Carol Herman made the following comment | Jul 11, 2007 7:17:26 PM | Permalink

Well, Webb couldn't find the group!

Today, trying the "Okinawa - Murtha" maneuver in the senate; his "idea" fell short by 4 votes.

It's also been noticed that among the senators running away from Dubya, are some republicans coming up for re-election in 2008. Like Collins of Maine. And, Snowe. All they'd need are some primary opponents. (Since Bonkeys are gonna have their own troubles.)

I think many Americans are "out for vacation." While others are just flummoxed. So a lot of the things we see coming out of congress ... get measured by "line attribution" for those that think they need the elites to feel important.

Or by general concensus, where not only are Dubya's poll numbers down, but, so too, and much worse, are the ratings people give to congress. Popularity: 14%.

Add to the laughs Cindy Sheehan's short-lived departure from the limelight. Now, she's back challenging pelosi. Well, two lousy women drivers. But I don't see the "saint of the ditch" damaging pelosi's car. (How come women have not yet found a "skilled driving contest" where they could, perhaps, take on NASCAR. But the roadway would be funny. It would go up towards a cliff's edge. And, you'd be dealing with flat tires. And, blocking access.) Other than that? I can't think of a thing that would draw successfully on the current contests.

The mlitary is not in trouble. The military still enjoys a 70% approval rating.

As to Webb? I think he's a one-termer. Where the only mistake would be if George Allen gets enough funds to "make a come back."

We need more talent running in contests for congress critters. And, judges, too.

A nice change to the last ballot, however, was that judges, who usually run unopposed, had a new box NO as a choice. Made it easy to pick.

The comments to this entry are closed.