Sunday, December 24, 2006
Al Qaeda lectures the Democrats
I've been traveling so much I missed this bit of comedy gold:
Al Qaeda has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party that credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists.
In a portion of the tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, made available only today, Zawahri says he has two messages for American Democrats.
“The first is that you aren’t the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen — the Muslim Ummah’s vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq — are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost,” Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News.
Zawahri calls on the Democrats to negotiate with him and Osama bin Laden, not others in the Islamic world who Zawahri says cannot help.
I hunted around on Google this morning -- 36 hours after ABC reported this story -- looking for mainstream media pickup, and could not find a single example. Either ABC News is wrong, or nobody else out there wants you to know that al Qaeda sides with the Democrats.
Now, before all our "reality-based" friends go bezerk, I am not arguing that Democrats support al Qaeda, or are treasonous, or anything like that. I do, however, speculate that if al Qaeda had expressed deep bitterness at the result of the November election rather than transporting joy, the New York Times might have covered it on the front page. Or at least on the editorial page.
In any case, I'm not an advocate of guilt-by-association political argument. Just as I think it is asinine when Democratic activists and lefty blogs (or random liberal Princetonians) cite the latest idiocy from Pat Robertson as a reason not to vote for Republicans, it would be equally silly -- perhaps more so -- to imply that the endorsement of al Qaeda is a reason, in and of itself, not to vote for Democrats (even when they mimic Democratic talking points). It is, however, legitimate to notice that the leftier Democrats are arguing for a policy that al Qaeda considers to be in its best interests. Now, you might say that al Qaeda is lying, or wrong, or that the alignment between the lefty Democratic prescription and al Qaeda's objectives is purely coincidental, and all of those possibilities should of course be taken into account when considering the benefits of withdrawal from Iraq. Ultimately, though, you have to wonder: Is it wise to ignore the clear statements of our enemies?
9 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Sun Dec 24, 09:30:00 AM:
*sigh*
The Republican War plan has been the greatest boon to A.Q. Without Bush's choice to elevate terrorists to warrior status, we wouldn't be locked in some sort of overblown global struggle. It would instead have been us fighting some thugs with a combination of special forces and law enforcement once the Afghanistan campaign was concluded.
Osama bin Laden couldn't have asked for a better nemesis than Bush's neocons. A.Q. has a global status they could only have dreamed of a few years ago.
Merry Christmas, Tigerhawk. Peace on Earth and Good Will towards Folks.
By 
, at
Sun Dec 24, 09:44:00 AM:
The ABC news page has 577 comments, though... linked from Pajamas Media.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/al_qaeda_sends_.html
Annlee
By , at
Sun Dec 24, 11:06:00 AM:
This is pretty clearly part of the pr war that al qaeda fights. I therefore submit that covering such news only helps the terrorists. Continuing to do so is tantamount to treason. Support our civilians!
By SR, at
Sun Dec 24, 12:00:00 PM:
Oh that's the reason the NYT and WaPo are taking the month off.
By SR, at
Sun Dec 24, 12:03:00 PM:
Hey Screwy. We are fighting the thugs with law enforcement, Special Forces, as well as the US Army and Marines. The bonus: we're doing it in Baghdad instead of NYC.
Sigh!
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Dec 24, 01:43:00 PM:
"Either ABC News is wrong, or nobody else out there wants you to know that al Qaeda sides with the Democrats."
Uh, that would be "B."
Sure Screwy, that's why they're so tricky about pretending to support the Democrats, knowing that that will cause us to support Republicans, which is what they really want. Is there any data, even theoretically, that could cause you to reevaluate your conclusions?
By , at
Sun Dec 24, 03:56:00 PM:
We should respond to this by redoubling our efforts to kill him and every last one of his compatriots.
Iowa John
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Dec 24, 09:31:00 PM:
"elevate terrorists to warrior status, we wouldn't be locked in some sort of overblown global struggle"
Yeah, because freakin' President Bush is the one who convinced the Muslims that mujahidun are warriors and not terrorists, rather than 1300 years of holy warrior tradition, dating from the very birth of Islam. Not to mention the military training and weaponry and experience gaines in Yugoslavia, Kashmir, Chechnya, and Afghanistan. It's nice to know that his words carry such weight persuading our enemies.
Although I suppose getting you to even admit that this is a global struggle is positive.
"A.Q. has a global status they could only have dreamed of a few years ago."
Yes and no. The Al Qaeda of 2001, the well oiled centrally controlled paramilitary machine that orchestrated about one major terror attack against the US per year and dozens in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India is dead. Broken. Scattered to the winds. What we have now are individuals throughout the world who just kind of decide to call themselves 'Al Qaeda of _____' because it lends an air of credibility, the same way that secret societies and fraternal organizations throughout the western world toss around the word 'Masonic.' Whatever links they have to the Old Guard are tenuous at best. It's no longer an organization as much as an idea. One doesn't have to be a Comintern agent to be a Communist.
By SR, at
Mon Dec 25, 11:53:00 AM:
"Al Queda of Hollywood" has a nice ring to it.
I wonder what the t-shirt looks like?
