Terrorists say: Vote Democrat!!

[Crookshanks]

Mideast terror leaders
to U.S.: Vote Democrat
Withdrawal from Iraq would embolden
jihadists to destroy Israel, America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 2, 2006
9:27 a.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM – Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Jaara was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman.

The terror leaders spoke as the debate regarding the future of America's war in Iraq has perhaps become the central theme of midterm elections, with most Democrats urging a timetable for withdrawal and Republicans mostly advocating staying the course in Iraq.

President Bush has even said he would send more troops if Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad, said they are needed to stabilize the region

The debate became especially poignant following remarks by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the 2004 presidential candidate who voted in support of the war in Iraq. Earlier this week he intimated American troops are uneducated, and it is the uneducated who "get stuck in Iraq."

Kerry, under intense pressure from fellow Democrats, now says his remarks were a "botched joke."

Terror leaders reject Nancy Pelosi's comments on Iraqi insurgency

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the at ude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."

Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."

Hamas' Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."

"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," Abdullah said.

While the terror leaders each independently compelled American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.

Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."

He called both Democrats and Republicans "agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S."

Abu Abdullah commented once Democrats are in power "the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it."

Still Jihad Jaara said the alternative is better than Bush's party.

"Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world."

-------------------------------
Still think the Democrats "plan" is the best way to go?

[ChumpDumper]

The terror leaders spoke as the debate regarding the future of America's war in Iraq has perhaps become the central theme of midterm elections, with most Democrats urging a timetable for withdrawal and Republicans mostly advocating staying the course in Iraq.

But they've NEVER been stay the course. Why do you Republicans ignore your President, who is now talking about timetables for withdrawl?

Still think the Democrats "plan" is the best way to go?

What plan? Their platform is "Vote for us -- at least we're not Republicans." And it's working.

[boutons_]

The Repug up has .... ed up.

Benchmarks ...."over and over and over and over" (Jim Baker, FL re-count)

Americans want a change away from ing up and corrupt Repugs.

The only alternative is the Dems.

Even if the Dems take both houses, dubya/ head/rummy won't change course. They'll escape from their in Jan 2009 and dump their messes on the next crew, which they hope will be Dem so the Repugs can blame the Dems EXCLUSIVELY for not winning the Repugs' unwinnable up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[DFW Spurs]

I wonder what you would say about George Washington’s defeats at Battle of Long Island or the loss at Fort Lee... We should abandon the Revolution... Nothing is Unwinnable...

[Ocotillo]

World Net Daily, wow, now there's a suprise that an aritcle like that would come from them.

[boutons_]

"Nothing is Unwinnable"

George Washington was a military man personally involved in the war, and obviously, based on the results he achieved, had some smarts, charisma, leadership in fighting a guerilla war against an oppressive, foreign power.

dubya/ head/rummy are losers playing sterile but murderous politics and ing up fighting a phony war against a non-threat.

[ChumpDumper]

I wonder what you would say about George Washington’s defeats at Battle of Long Island or the loss at Fort Lee.

I'd say Washington wasn't in Iraq fighting someone else's civil war.

[boutons_]

In modern terms, George dubya could have told King George III:

"Give it up, dude. You're fighting a foreign war with impossibly expensive logistical lines agsinst a people whose "hearts and minds" are dead set against you and your taxes and your harvesting their resources AND rabidly, "religiously" dead set FOR their own country and self-determination"

Dammit, demloshing these radical right dubya suckers is getting too easy, not even a sport anymore.

[Spurminator]

I just don't understand how you reach a point in your life where you read an article like this and say to yourself, "You know, that's a completely rational and logical article from a reputable source."

[boutons_]

it's Crooky, she don't need facts or rationality or intellect.

She's a "believer" where anything she believes must be true. I keep her off IGNORE purely for entertainment purposes.

[Crookshanks]

it's Crooky, she don't need facts or rationality or intellect.

She's a "believer" where anything she believes must true. I keep her off IGNORE purely for entertainment purposes.

Right back at ya boutons! Is it your contention that this is a fabricated story? I'll admit I am not familiar with every news source, but I got this article from Laura Ingraham's website and I trust her. She reads several newspapers daily and her staff is always checking the latest news. While she is a conservative, she has others on her show that have opposing viewpoints and she has a friendship with many liberals.

Take what you want from the article - but I think liberals are being very naive if they think the statements in it are completely untrue.

[DFW Spurs]

Dammit, demloshing these radical right dubya suckers is getting too easy, not even a sport anymore.

Don't put me in the dubya boat or the dems boat... I'm a centrist and don't believe that all is lost in Iraq... Being a pessimist is all too easy... Things are ty in Bagdad and the Anbar prov, but it’s far from over... This nation does not have the stomach for war… America’s view is that of invincibility and once our son’s die doing the task they’ve chosen to embark on when they joined the military we scream quagmire. The reality is war is not glamorous or easy… And if you tell me they didn’t ask to go to Iraq or Afghanistan then your naïve… They did not join the military with the expectations of never going to war… If they did then that’s their mistake… The reality is we’re there and we’re not pulling out. Even if the dems come to the rescue we’re not leaving Iraq…

[Ocotillo]

This country has the stomach for war, if it is necessary. When we are united and stand together, noone is going to stop us (see Afghanistan).

What the country doesn't have a stomach for are these political/military excursions (Korea/Vietnam/Iraq) where there is not a clear defined need or mission that we all agree on.

Gulf War I served as a model of how to run a war.

WWII we were attacked and drug into it. We were attacked on 9/11 hence the support for going into Afghanistan not just from the American populace but from the rest of the world as well.

When we forget our principles and follow leaders with misguided goals that don't have buy in from the country, you get quagmires and debacles.

We will leave Iraq eventually. We have no designs on empire, it is not our home turf, they did not attack us, the Iraqis for the most part want us to leave, the President is all over the map trying to define what it means to win, we are leaving. It may be after Bush leaves, it may be sooner, but we will not be staying there no matter what some of the PNAC freaks want or what Bush says.

[DFW Spurs]

So I guess taking on terrorist and insurgents in Iraq until the Iraqis can do it themselves isn't a clear plan... Let’s not project Vietnam to this conflict... Different times and a different type of military... Remember the first gulf war was against a conventional army... That model does not apply here. And you’re naive to think that we'll be out of Iraq even with Bush gone... The politicians have too much of an interest in the Middle East (oil) regardless of party loyalty… Exxon is in everyone’s pockets. So lets not Saint the dems in capital hill yet...

[ChumpDumper]

So I guess taking on terrorist and insurgents in Iraq until the Iraqis can do it themselves isn't a clear plan.

Since Bushy didn't rule out permanent US bases in Iraq, no.

Let’s not project Vietnam to this conflict... Different times and a different type of military.

You just projected the Revolutionary War onto this conflict. Hypocrite much?

And you’re naive to think that we'll be out of Iraq even with Bush gone.

But you just said we would leave when the Iraqis could"do it" for themselves. Which is it?

The politicians have too much of an interest in the Middle East (oil) regardless of party loyalty.

So it's about oil now? You're all over the map. No wonder the Democrats are going to win.

[ChumpDumper]

BTW - Since they are in contact with known terraists, I guess WorldNetDaily's phones are tapped without warrants.

[boutons_]

Crooky,

While the radical Muslims love having the US military suckered into foreign kiling fields and close at hand to be killed in nightmarish urban and moutainous warfare 10K miles from the USA (logistics), the real prize is for OBL is to have an Islamic country, like Afghanistan earlier (and probably later), where he can set up a state and run his jihad against the west, the sooner the better.

If jihadists think the Dems will disengage sooner than the dumb Repugs, that's fine with jihadists. If it's US troops in the 'hood to kill, that's OK, too.

The religioiusly insane jihadists have MUCH MORE patience with their own losses than the Americans ever will. The jihadists are ready to carry on for decades, the Americans, not.

Although this week's polls show that Americans think that if the Dems win they will moves towards disengagement, the Americans also KNOW that the Repugs have failed miserably so far, and 80% think the Repugs are losing Iraq.

I don't give about what the jihadists think. Why do you?

However, how Americans think, and vote, is extremely important now (and always), as it was 30+ years ago in getting the politicians to pull out of their ruinous, failed war in VN.

The Repug Iraq war is

THE CENTRAL, PRIMARY ISSUE

in this election, which is in fact a referendum on the Repugs and their phony Iraq war.

As Olberman said so violenty,ruthlessly passionately last night, the American people make the decisions, NOT the WH or other politicians.

Let's see what Americans say about the Repug Iraq war next week.

Either way, Iraq and Afghanistan are lost now, or later, but they're lost, to all our perils. The Repugs have made in Iraq one of the primary strategic blunders in military history, right up there with Napolean marching into Russia in the dead of winter.

How's that? A Repug military failure equal to , even greater than, a French military failure? You radical right xenophobes need stick that up your nose and get damn good snort of it. It might cover the reek of US military blood on your hands.

[DFW Spurs]

Typical word twisting... Rev. War reference was towards my "all is not lost" opinion... Viet War reference "not to project" is supported by my opinion that it’s a different era and different army... "The plan" is to defeat the terrorist until the Iraqis can do it themselves, but I never said the American presence in Iraq would diminish once the Iraqis become competent... Thanks for trying...

[DFW Spurs]

BTW oil is self explanatory...

[ChumpDumper]

Rev. War reference was towards my "all is not lost" opinion... Viet War reference "not to project" is supported by my opinion that it’s a different era and different army...

No . You projected the Revolutionary War onto this conflict to try and say all is not lost.

"The plan" is to defeat the terrorist until the Iraqis can do it themselves, but I never said the American presence in Iraq would diminish once the Iraqis become competent.

So the plan is to stay in Iraq forever. Understood. Why don't the Republicans use that as a talking point?

[ChumpDumper]

BTW oil is self explanatory...

Then why did the administration initially deny it?

[Trainwreck2100]

Then why did the administration initially deny it?

Cause they think we are as stupid as they are

[DFW Spurs]

It's not just a Republican talking point... Its a political talking point... But your too blinded by your loyalty to the dems to see other wise... Even after the first gulf war we were still in the middle east... Why would it be different now...

[DFW Spurs]

Then why did the administration initially deny it?

Don't know, talk to a republican... BTW when you do, tell him I'm still paying too much for gas...

[ChumpDumper]

It's not just a Republican talking point... Its a political talking point.

But no one has ever said anything about maintaining a permanent military presence in Iraq. Why is that?

But your too blinded by your loyalty to the dems to see other wise.

Nah, I'm not loyal at all to that bunch of pussies.

Even after the first gulf war we were still in the middle east.

In Iraq?

Why would it be different now.

It would be in Iraq. Are you really this stupid?