A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

Cross-posted by Jim Simpson at Truth and Consequences

In reference to Laurie Mylroie's excellent piece immediately below, I submit the following picture, found by the 3rd Infantry Division shortly after our invasion of Iraq. Whether or not Saddam had a hand in 9-11, he sure wanted people to think he did.

Read Sarah and Saddam

Fred Thompson and CAIR

Cross Posted from Wake up America, thanks Maggie for letting me share this with your readers. Hat Tip to our contributor and blog writer Snooper from Freedom Ain't Free and Take our country back blogs for the link to Thompson's words about CAIR. First off, you might notice we have done a few pieces on Fred Thompson, as well as being part of a blogroll for Fred and having a contribute button on the left sidebar. The only way to decide whether or not to endorse him when the time comes is to listen to what he has to say, check his voting record and when the times comes, make the decision, so as I hear and watch him, I bring his words to you also because in 2008, you also will be making the decision of who to vote for. First, lets look at what Thompson had to say about CAIR, then I am going to show you CAIR's extensive history as well as the documented proof of his terror ties.

I've talked before about the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- most recently because it filed that lawsuit against Americans who reported suspicious behavior by Muslims on a U.S. Airways flight. Better known just as CAIR, the lobbying group has come under a lot of scrutiny lately for its connections to terror-supporting groups. This time, though, The Washington Times has uncovered some very good news about the group. For years, CAIR has claimed to represent millions of American Muslims. In fact, they claim to represent more Muslim in American than ... there are in America. This has alarmed Americans in general as the group often seems to be more aligned with our enemies than us -- which isn't surprising as it spun off from a group funded by Hamas. As you know, Hamas has been waging a terrorist war against Israel and calls for its total destruction. It also promises to see America destroyed. Nowadays, Hamas is busy murdering its Palestinian political rivals. Even with this history, and CAIR's conspicuous failure to condemn Hamas by name, it has been treated as if represents Muslim Americans by our own government. The good news is that the financial support CAIR claims to have among American Muslims is a myth. We know this because The Washington Times got hold of the group's IRS tax records. CAIR's dues-paying membership has shrunk 90 percent since 9/11 -- from 29,000 in 2000 to only 1,700 last year. CAIR's annual income from dues plunged from $733,000 to $59,000. Clearly, America's Muslims are not supporting this group -- and I'm happy to hear about it. Of course, every silver lining seems to have a cloud; and this cloud is that CAIR's spending is running about $3 million a year. They’ve opened 25 new chapters in major cities across the country even as their dues shrank to a pittance. The question is; who’s funding CAIR? CAIR's not saying. The New York Times earlier this year reported that the backing is from "wealthy Persian Gulf governments" including the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, we have a bigger problem here than the one with CAIR.

One of the things I am beginning to appreciate about Fred Thompson is he says what needs to be said without regard to "political correctness". Everyone is so damn scared to speak the truth if it might offend someone that too much is being left unsaid. That is dangerous and unacceptable. Our Previous post, written by Snooper talks a bit about the Muslim Brotherhood and Keith Ellison and I am going to expand on that a bit. NOW, a little history abut CAIR and Keith Ellison's links to CAIR, previously shown to you here.

Jump forward to today now. Does everybody remember the Flying Imam incident? Where six Imams were removed from a plane for acting suspiciously, praying loudy (which is what CAIR focused on), asking for seat belt extensions and then placing them at their feet instead of using them, speaking in a manner than when translated showed complete anti-American, Pro Saddam Hussein rhetoric and placing themselves in a seating arrangement exactly like the 9/11 terrorists did before those fateful crashes. Ellison also took part in "Community Night" with Imam Siraj Wahhaj, and Imam Dr. Omar Shahin. This was “for Imams to meet and interact with community members.” Some of the participants of this meeting became involved in the Flying Imams controversy after being removed from an Arizona bound plane for concerning behavior. Ellison became involved in this controversy shortly after it erupted when he attempted to arrange a meeting between parties including US Airways executives, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and other legislators and community members. Questions about Shahin surfaced in July 2005, when author and terrorism investigator Steven Emerson, author of "Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S.," mentioned him in testimony before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee investigating the financing of terrorists. Emerson identified Shahin as a fundraiser for KindHearts, a Toledo-based Muslim charity that has been a subject of federal scrutiny for suspected links to terror-related groups in the Mideast. Emerson also noted Shahin's work as an imam for the Islamic Center of Tucson, which, he said, "has an extensive history of terror links." Okay, so lets give Ellison the benefit of doubt once again and chalk his connection with Shahnin and the Nation of Islam up to coincedence or bad judgment. [...] Since its founding in 1994, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”), and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and certain of its officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy. Senior CAIR employee Randall Todd Royer, a/k/a “Ismail” Royer, pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia. He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons who sought training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan for the purpose of waging jihad against American troops in Afghanistan. Royer’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed with CAIR. CAIR's Director of Community Relations, Bassem Khafagi , was arrested by the United States due to his ties with a terror-financing front group. Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR. On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation, and a brother-in-law of Musa Abu Marzook , was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering. Ghassan Elashi committed his crimes while working at CAIR, and was found Guilty. CAIR Board Member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing, has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble unless it accepts Islam. Consistent with Hamas ideology, CAIR has served as a conduit for the distribution of materials and funds from foreign nationals to groups and institutions within the United States for the purpose of promoting radical Islam and Hamas ideology, and attacked Islamic clerics and scholars who reject radical Islam and the Hamas agenda. Siraj Wahaj and Omar Shahin were both part of that "community night" that Ellison took part in. Both also involved with the incident on the plane and all three involved with CAIR. Yet another coincedence? OK, sure...lets call that a coincedence too, shall we? Now we have two separate controversial events that happened after that "community night" meeting. One the flying Imams, then we have Ellison deciding to use the Koran for his swearing in, at a time when our country is at war with extremists that are using the Koran in a perverted way to justify killing innocent people. Another coincedence? You decide. What about Ellison's "association" with CAIR? The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was an ardent supporter of Ellison’s 2006 campaign, a fact that caused some controversy (see below). Two days after the 2006 election, CAIR announced Ellison would be a keynote speaker at their annual banquet in Virginia less than two weeks later. According to a CAIR press release, this would be Ellison's first major post-election address. On November 13, 2006 the Star Tribune reported Ellison said he “would not be the keynote speaker at the annual banquet for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)”. Acknowledging that “His appearance had already been announced by CAIR…Ellison said it [the apparently mistaken announcement] was the result of a ‘natural, normal miscommunication.’” Though Ellison was not able to attend the event in person he sent a videotaped address. Now, to be fair, Ellison's associations with the Nation of Islam and CAIR could just be very bad judgment, his timing with his controversial decision to use the Koran at his swearing in ceremony could also be chalked up to bad judgement. But everything together, the connection to the Imams that were removed from the plane, the CAIR invovement, the Nation of Islam involvement, the fact that two VERY controversial incidents happened after that "community night" meeting and the fact that all of the above had some form of involvement with CAIR, all together has to make one stop and say hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ok, bad judgment at the very least. That isn't the only time Ellison has shown bad judgment though, nope, not at all. We then have his campaign finance violations: Campaign finance has also been an issue for Ellison. In early 2006, the Minnesota State Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board reprimanded Ellison for unreported contributions, discrepancies in cash balances, and misclassified disbursements. These transgressions occurred in the years 2002-2004. In 2005 when the board tried to get more information about the problems in Ellison's reports, they got no response from Ellison or his treasurer (his wife Kim). When the board heard nothing, they opened the investigation. Ellison was subpoenaed and fined. The board has also fined Ellison numerous times for late filings, been sued twice by the attorney general, and has been warned many times for absent or incomplete disclosure. (Source) Ellison also failed to pay all or part of his income taxes five separate years between 1992 and 2000, forcing the state and Internal Revenue Service to put liens on his home. He later paid in excess of $18,000. This man certainly has his fair share of bad judgment doesn't he? An awful lot of coincedences too. There is much, much more out there, available at our fingertips, just by using the search engine. Makes one wonder why everyone is so quiet about this man.....are they scared that it may not be "politically correct" to bring up issues about this man, simply because he is a Muslim? Have we become so PC that justified questions are not asked simply because of a mans religion? If this was a non-Muslim politician, Democrat OR Republican, would these things NOT have become major stumbling blocks to their career? Legitimate questions all....anyone have any answers?

Anyone at all? Didn't think so. In a related article today, we have a Muslim women telling us a few things that offend her, and it isn't what you would expect so please read the whole piece, I am only showing excerpts.(Emphasis will be mine)

GROWING up in Vancouver, I attended an Islamic school every Saturday. There, I learned that Jews can't be trusted because they worship "moolah, not Allah", meaning money, not God. According to my teacher, every last Jew is consumed with business. But looking around my neighbourhood, I noticed that most of the new business signs featured Asian languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Hindi, Punjabi and plenty of Urdu. Not Hebrew, Urdu, which is spoken throughout Pakistan. That reality check made me ask: What if my religious school isn't educating me? What if it's indoctrinating me? I'm reminded of this question thanks to the news that Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses and 10 other works of fiction, will be knighted by the Queen. On Monday, Pakistan's religious affairs minister said that because Rushdie had blasphemed Islam with provocative literature, it was understandable that angry Muslims would commit suicide bombings over his knighthood. Members of parliament, as well as the Pakistani Government, amplified the condemnation of Britain, feeding cries of offence to Muslim sensibilities from Europe to Asia. As a Muslim, you better believe I'm offended - by these absurd reactions.

She then goes on to list things that offend her:

I'm offended that it is not the first time honours from the West have met with vitriol and violence. In 1979, Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam became the first Muslim to win the Nobel Prize in science. He began his acceptance speech with a verse from the Koran. Salam's country ought to have celebrated him. Instead, rioters tried to prevent him from re-entering the country. Parliament even declared him a non-Muslim because he belonged to a religious minority. His name continues to be controversial, invoked by state authorities in hushed tones. I'm offended that every year, there are more women killed in Pakistan for allegedly violating their family's honour than there are detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Muslims have rightly denounced the mistreatment of Gitmo prisoners. But where's our outrage over the murder of many more Muslims at the hands of our own? I'm offended that in April, mullahs at an extreme mosque in Pakistan issued a fatwa against hugging. The country's female tourism minister had embraced - or, depending on the account you follow, accepted a congratulatory pat from - her skydiving instructor after she successfully jumped in a French fundraiser for the victims of the 2005 Pakistan earthquake. Clerics announced her act of touching another man to be "a great sin" and demanded she be fired. I'm offended by their fatwa proclaiming that women should stay at home and remain covered at all times. I'm offended that they've bullied music store owners and video vendors into closing up shop. I'm offended that the Government tiptoes around their craziness because these clerics threaten suicide attacks if confronted. I'm offended that on Sunday, at least 35 Muslims in Kabul were blown to bits by other Muslims and on Tuesday, 80 more in Baghdad by Islamic "insurgents", with no official statement from Pakistan to deplore these assaults on fellow believers. I'm offended that amid the internecine carnage, a professed atheist named Salman Rushdie tops the to-do list. Above all, I'm offended that so many other Muslims are not offended enough to demonstrate widely against God's self-appointed ambassadors. We complain to the world that Islam is being exploited by fundamentalists, yet when reckoning with the opportunity to resist their clamour en masse, we fall curiously silent. In a battle between flaming fundamentalists and mute moderates, who do you think is going to win?

Read the rest... Moderate Muslims are our friends and I have shown multiple instances where Moderate Muslims have stepped up, risking their very lives, to speak out against the radical extremists that have hijacked their faith for murder and suicide bombings and killing innocent men, women and children. More need to do so though and we cannot let "political correctness" stop us from speaking the truth for fear that we "may" offend someone. That type of mindset is what will get us killed. A MUST READ piece from Debbie at Right Truth called "Some turning against Israel - is the answer a healthy dose of neutron bombs?". Go. Read. It is well worth the time.

Al Gore Video on Saddam Hussein's Terrorism

Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/3480113520192134686 H/T to Rush Limbaugh Here's a lead-in to the Clinton-Gore Presidency. Listen as Al Gore campaigns against a weak-on-terrorism George H.W. Bush presidency. Referring to Saddam Hussein's human rights offenses, his acts of terrorism, and affiliations with terrorists, as "the murderous ambitions of a despot," Gore campaigned on the lack of action taken by the administration which was to precede his. Gore acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless and brutal dictator, that Iraq was a "nation with a record of terrorism," and that the CIA, the Defense Department, the State Department, the Justice Department, the Energy Department, the Commerce Department and "other agencies throughout the government" notified Bush 41's people that Iraq was "clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network of front companies." Comes January 1993...four months after the speech in this video; Clinton and Gore are sworn-in to our highest offices, with confirmed knowledge that you and I could not know...then in February 1993, one month after the Clinton-Gore inauguration, the 1st World Trade Tower bombing occurred, June 1996 the Khobar Towers were bombed, October 2000 the USS Cole was bombed. What did the Clinton-Gore team do in the ensuing 8 years to protect us from Saddam Hussein and his terrorism ties? Nothing. That's the answer. Nothing! Video courtesy of pitythefool Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, third world county, The Random Yak, stikNstein... has no mercy, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Technorati Tags:Al Gore, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, Terrorism, Khobar Towers, World Trade Towers, USS Cole, President George H. W. Bush

Lebanese Refugee Camp Harbors Achille Lauro Terrorist

Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/7578018950456245432


Lebanon Violence: Lebanese troops fought new gun battles with Islamic extremists in the north of the country while the plumes of black smoke rose from the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr Al-Bared. (Photo Credit: Ramzi Haidar, AFP/Getty Images)

Do you remember the 1985 murder of American, Leon Klinghoffer, aboard the cruise ship, Achille Lauro? Klinghoffer (69), Jewish and wheelchair bound, was shot and killed by Palestinian terrorists. Some of the ship's staff were forced to dump his body over the side. Mr. and Mrs. Klinghoffer were celebrating their 36th wedding anniversary.

Today, an Achille Lauro hijacker is reported to be alive and well inside the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Lebanon (shown in photo above). While Wikipedia shows that Bassam al-Ashker was paroled in Italy in 1991, and died in February 2004, it seems he may be alive, is attempting to fulfill his mission and is boastful of fighting Americans:

"I organize the training of young Palestinian recruits who we send to fight the Americans alongside the Iraqi resistance," Ashker told reporters. "I have even fought them myself in Fallujah and Ramadi," two rebel bastions west of Baghdad.

The hijacking of the Achille Lauro was masterminded by Abu Abbas (also known as Muhammad Zaidan) - a name well-know to those of us who pay attention to the War on Terror. He was the founder and leader of the Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF). As the Achille Lauro passengers were freed, Abass escaped (???) capture, fled Italy, and was sentenced in absentia. He ran straight to Saddam Hussein, who personally protected him and afforded him safe harbor. Abass died in U.S. Custody in Baghdad in March 2004.

Reports are that Ashker spent 14 years in Iraq after his 1991 parole, before relocating to Nahr al-Bared.

Pinged by Blogs For Borders Memorial Day 2007 from
blog@MoreWhat. Excerpt: In honor of the brave men and women who serve this country we traveled to a small Illinois town that was dedicating a veterans memorial this memorial day weekend….


Pinged by Potbelly Stove with Polls and The War. Excerpt: Excerpt: A comment attributed to English politician Disraeli seems appropriate here: "There are lies, damnable lies, and statistics." The White House aides have it right:

Pinged by Brian Morganstern: Yes IndeedDWoman Honor Thyself. Excerpt: MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. - When he first saw the video of the men shooting rifles and chanting, store clerk Brian Morganstern says he was concerned, but he wasn’t sure if he should call police.

Pinged by Rest assured First Deputy Prime Minister... from Potbelly Stove. Excerpt: We trust you. But, we will want to verify...

Pinged by Miss USA Booed in Mexico from The Amboy Times Excerpt: This isn't the first time Americans have been treated poorly by our friendly neighbors to the south. But at least this time they weren't chanting, Osama...Osama... like they did at an Olympic soccer match in 2004.The pageant turned painful for

Pinged by In Other Words: Well, what did you expect? from Colloquium.
Excerpt: "Well, what did you expect?" Has anyone ever said that to you? Or have you ever said it to someone? My response to both questions is "yes."

Pinged by American Traitor Adam Gadahn Issues New Treats via from Blue Star Chronicles. Excerpt: The American chubby loser from California is back playing his role as pet puppet messenger for al-Qaeda to America.

Pinged by Dissing America from Adam's Blog. Excerpt: The shameful treatment of MIss USA at the Miss Universe pageant was disrespectful to the United States. The Anti-US attitude given how much comes to Mexico from the US shows the problem with a nation that's producing illegal immigratnts with an entit...



Linked by:
America's Victory 08 with Hillary Rodham Wants Socialism, Again. Excerpt: Hillary Rodham said it took a village to raise our children and now she believes that our wealth should be redistributed. This idea is not new, it is called socialism and has been tried many times before.

Demediacratic Nation with The US and Iran Talk and Iran Offers Good Faith? Excerpt: The US talks with Iran in Baghdad about Iraq, which further emboldens the Tehrrorists in Tehran. Iran covertly operates in Iraq to keep it off balance; although the covertness of it all is only so to our msm. Why are we supposed to believe that Iran’s nuclear intentions are peaceful?

Technorati Tags:Bassam Al Ashker, Achille Lauro Hijacking, Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF), Abu Abass, Iraq, War on Terror, Saddam Hussein, Nahr Al-Bared, Lebanon, Lebanese Refugee Camps, Leon Klinghoffer, Ya Libnan

Venezuelans Fight the Loss of Free Press

Freedom across the globe dwindles as Danny Glover steps-in and cozies-up with Chavez, snatching the Bolivars right out of the hands of the people.

Venezuelans are in the streets fighting for free press. Their dictator, Hugo Chavez, has taken-down the most popular television station there, and replaced it with a state-sponsored station.

Glover thumbed his nose at Venezuelan liberties (he need not worry, American troops are protecting his) and aligned himself with deep pockets and dictators, revealing his true lack of concern for freedom, for the poor and the down-trodden.

Glover snagged his $20-$30 Million (depending on whose reporting you believe) before Venezuelan actors, anchors, agents, writers, camera crews, and grips lost their jobs. Three thousand people out of work and a station operating for 53 years is gone. Glover will make two movies in Venezuela, but no, the jobs for those in television will not be replaced by Glover's ventures. On Glover's love of America:

Glover was a signatory to "The Conscience of the World," a public letter signed by 160 artists which condemned the War in Iraq, and pledged support for the Communist dictatorship of Cuba. He also supports the Maoist group Not In Our Name (NION), which "pledges resistance to endless war, detentions and roundups, [and] attacks on civil liberties," and is directed by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party.

As Glover attempts to add legitimacy to dictatorships, Chavez controls the military, the legislature, the courts, most private industry, including our American oil companies - he also controls former U.S. President Jimmy Carter.

For thoughts on loss of free speech in Russia, read Russians Mourn the Loss of Free Press

This a day to remember just how precious are our freedoms and to fiercely battle back against those who would hastily feed the gators, hoping they will eat him last.

A closing thought on how we make freedom ours:

You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free. Clarence Darrow

Doomed to Repeat History

By Stanford Matthews originally posted at: Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The American public was not interested in getting involved in World War I. The US only entered the war in the last year or year and a half. The same can be said of early sentiment of World War II. Most Americans initially viewed the war as Europe's problem and resistance to entering the war was widespread. Only after Pearl Harbor was attacked did the mood of the country change. After entering the war there was no voice for turning back.The outcomes of the two World Wars were successful. The Korean War was not widely supported. As support continued to decline, some attempts at a peaceful settlement finally resulted in withdrawal. Perhaps the outcome of that war was influenced by the lack of support at home. More than fifty years later and the US, Korea and the rest of the world are still paying for the missing successful outcome. The Viet Nam War was hamstrung by similar problems with public sentiment and lack of support. The intrusion of civilian leaders into military matters exacerbated difficulties in achieving a successful outcome.

Desert Storm was a renewal. The psychological hangover from past wartime experiences that did not end well were vindicated as not typical of US resolve. The public was solidly behind US forces led by Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf as the military defeated the Iraqi forces of Saddam Hussein in a 100 hour war that resembled the features of a video game as most watched the day to day events on CNN in real time. The American public and the instant society were hooked. War should always be successfully completed in a week.

Some disagreement as to whether Saddam should have been allowed to remain in power or even breathe resulted in nothing being done. Solving problems for the Kurds were left undone and they suffered severely at the hands of Saddam Hussein after the brief war. The public largely ignored any more discussion of Iraq after being satisfied with an instant war and outcome. Case closed.

Inadequate public support and inability of all civilian and military leadership to be in sync have hamstrung the prosecution of this war. To allow the enemy a front row seat to continued bickering about the war only serves that enemy. All the focus and concern should not be placed on this war. How this country will respond to the next crisis that threatens our existence is being determined in Iraq. The shortsighted view is again affecting outcomes.

The weakening resolve of some members of the GOP that are concerned with party politics is the latest evidence of a lack of will to do the right thing. The White House, Democratic leadership and again, some members of the current minority party are lining up to give away this country to corporate interests. Those who do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. To facilitate a failure in Iraq or the new threats from terrorism and to open wider already porous borders plus offering amnesty to law breakers has real consequences.

For those who do not support the war in Iraq, national defense, security and effective control of the borders and immigration, consider the possibility that your position, no matter how well-intentioned, is wrong. Strong national defense, security and law enforcement can allow exceptions when too restrictive whereas the lack of these measures can spell disaster. Do you really want to risk this country's future on feel good sentiments that allow those who would do harm to succeed?

Bush Told War Is Harming The GOP

House Republican moderates, in a remarkably blunt White House meeting, warned President Bush this week that his pursuit of the war in Iraq is risking the future of the Republican Party and that he cannot count on GOP support for many more months.

Reid Forces New Senate Debate on Immigration

With bipartisan talks on immigration near a standstill, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) moved yesterday to bring last year's broad overhaul of immigration laws back to the floor of the Senate next week, appealing to President Bush to save what could be his last hope for a major...

After Veto, Democrats Still Pitching Defeat and Surrender

Cross Posted with Permission from Right in a Left World After telling Democrats for months that any bill for funding our Troops containing an artificial deadline would be swiftly vetoed, President Bush did just that. As if taken by surprise, Democrat party leaders acted surprised and even though they had previously said they wished to desired to negotiate with Republicans, they are lined up with new plans for surrender and defeat in the War on Terror after failing to garner enough votes to override the veto. Harry Reid (D. Nv), infamous now for his “the war is lost” gaffe, says, "No one wants out of Iraq more than I do," adding, "There is nothing off the table -- including timetables, benchmarks, waivers from the president, waivers from the secretary of defense. ... Nothing." Reid continues to insist on a Troop pullout. Dick Durbin, (D.Ill), famous for the labeling of our Troops as Nazis, Soviets and other repressive regime fame (since apologized for) says, "If we're not going to hold the overall administration accountable, let's at least hold the Iraqis accountable." Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca.), newly coronated Queen of the House, said, "The goal is obviously to strengthen our military, to support our troops, to honor our promises to our veterans, to hold the Iraqis accountable so that we can end this war, to bring stability to the region, to turn our attention to the War on Terror." HELLO, Ms. Pelosi, Iraq is the War on Terror. It is but one battle in the over all war and we can expect many more before we crush this radical Jihadist movement threatening world peace. We can expect them especially considering the Democrat party’s irresponsible comments and actions that embolden our enemies by telegraphing a date certain our Troops will be forced to cut and run John Edwards (D. NC), who would not acknowledge there actually is a War on Terror by raising his hand in response to a question posed to participants in the recent Democrat debates, proposes a unique method of ending any stalemate and funding our Troops now in Harm’s Way. His proposal: “They ought to do another bill, funding the troops, with a timetable for withdrawal and send it back. If he vetoes that one, then they ought to do it again.” That’s right. Edwards wants to just keep sending the same thing back time and time again! Even before President Bush vetoed the excessively flawed bill, Jack Murtha (D. Pa) of Marines killed Haditha civilians in cold blood fame and House Defense Appropriations Chairman advocates funding the Troops two months at a time. House Defense appropriator Jim Moran (D. Va.) said a two-month bill is intended to keep troops funded without giving the president too much latitude. That’s right, tie everybody’s hands behind their backs while fighting for our freedom and facing the most gruesome enemy they have ever had to face. John Kerry (D. Ma) of "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq" fame says, "By vetoing this bill, the President is ignoring the majority in both the House and Senate who voted to end the disastrous open-ended Bush policy by setting a sensible deadline for the redeployment of troops," adding, “No matter how many times the President vetoes this plan, we will continue to fight for a new policy." There is no “new policy,” just the same old cut and run, retreat and surrender he advocated during Viet Nam, helping to bring about the disastrous result the world saw there. Hillary Clinton (D. NY) of ‘vast right winged conspiracy’ fame teams up with Robert Byrd (D. WV) of World War Two Ku Klux Klan heroism fame, jointly are proposing legislation requiring the president to seek a reauthorization from Congress to extend the military effort in Iraq beyond October 11, 2007, the fifth anniversary of the resolution granting authority to reengage Iraq. Says Clinton, "If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him." Obviously, she has forgotten when she said, “I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security,” on NBC's "Meet The Press," September 15, 2002. Patty Murray (D. Wa) of ‘Osama bin Laden is popular in poor countries because he helped pay for schools, roads and even day care centers’ chimed in with, “I thought that we had given the president an opportunity to have a very strong tool to go back to Iraq and say, ‘You need to stand up and take responsibility for your country.’” Has she missed the deaths to Iraqis who succumb to suicide bombers outside of Police and Army recruitment offices in Iraq? And yet, they keep coming to sign up. Perhaps she missed the Sunni Muslim sheikhs joining the US in fighting Al Qaeda. Most telling in all this defeatist rhetoric we have come to see from the Democrat party is Neil Abercrombie (D. Hi), chairman of the Air and Land Forces Armed Services subcommittee recommendation of cutting $867 million from the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. Abercrombie said, “The Army is in trouble. This situation requires dramatic action to prevent further decay … over the next two years.” Somehow, I just fail to grasp the logic of cutting funds for combat systems to prevent further decay of the Army during war. Lew UPDATE 1: AS Democrats pitch surrender and defeat, Iraqis align themselves with President Bush. Bottom Line Upfront, Amy Proctors Blog: Iraq Opposes Troop Withdrawal; Parliament Will Not Recess UPDATE 2: AKI, ADNKRONOSinternational reports IRAQ: NEW CARTEL JOINS ANTI AL-QAEDA FRONT Tell us again, Senator Reid, how we have lost the war! A huge Thank you to Lew for permission to cross post this in full. Please head over to his site and look around, he has some wonderful pieces with great analysis. .

Sunni al-Qaeda Split in Iraq?

Various sources are reporting Iraqi-Sunni factions, with fealty to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda in Iraq, are unhappy with the alliance, and are breaking ties. After a plea to bin Laden to:

"...assume religious and organizational responsibility for al-Qaeda..."

but, still, continuing to see Iraqi civilian deaths a the hands of al-Qaeda, Sunnis are outraged. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is believed to be comprised of mostly foreign fighters and be heavily financed by foreign sources. Al-Qaeda claims credit for a chlorine gas bombing, kidnappings, bodies found in ditches, trash bins and rivers, and destruction of city infrastructure and houses of worship. An Iraqi Parliament member is quoted:

They [Sunni fighters] have realized that those people [al-Qaeda] are not working for Iraq's interests,..."

It's a big dilemma, and not one with an easy-out. Sunnis are fighting Sunnis, and being a Sunni is a complicated progeniture. A leader of the Jamiat insurgency says that were it not for al-Qaeda's 9/ll assault on America,

"...neither Iraq or Afghanistan would be occupied..."

There's a lot of truth in that, because any war lord worth his stash of IEDs, knows that double-digit UN Resolutions are no threat at all. We can turn this whole lament around. It's reasonable to think that some Iraqis desire to live in a civilized society, and because of al-Qaeda, Saddam is gone, but school is open on most days and teachers no longer despair over Uday Hussein's mid-day summons of a young female student. Remember Abu Ghraib, where real atrocties were committed, every day, before U.S. Troops arrived? Thank al-Qaeda that Abu Ghraib no longer imprisons Saddam's political dissidents. Saddam's exit from the everyday life of powerful Ba'athist Sunnis, no long receiving dispensation from their leader and reduced to living the life of a terrorist on the run, has provided the motive to get that power back. The problem is, there's no one Ba'athist to whom allegiance can be pledged - each splinter group has their own agenda, as does al-Qaeda - and al-Qaeda's allegiance is not to the good people of Iraq. Read this piece from Truth & Consequences (Jim Simpson) for Sunni Ba'athist background before reading the current news reports below. The question is, does the split from al-Qaeda help our troops in Iraq? Read these analyses and see if you can figure it out: Counterterrorism Blog: CBN News on the Anbar Salvation Front By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross with links to Erick Stakelbeck "Re-Taking Al-Qaeda" and Bill Roggio's "Islamic Army of Iraq splits from Al-Qaeda, Sudarsan Raghaven's intriguing story of tribal warfare at the WashingtonPost.com and this piece from the latimes.com. Permalink for this entry: http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2007/04/sunni-al-qaeda-split-in-iraq.html Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/2916545998234977731 Tracked to: Iz-lamic RepubliC of GreaT Britain by Woman Honor Thyself. Excerpt from her important piece: Britain’s National Union of Journalists denounced Israel on Friday for its “military adventures” in Gaza and Le-banon, called on the government to impose sanctions and urged a boycott of Israeli goods. Islamic Army of Iraq Splits from Al-Qaeda by Bill Roggio - The Fourth Rail. Excerpt: The largest Sunni insurgent group has severed ties with al Qaeda and its Islamic State of Iraq; Sunni religious leaders oppose al Qaeda Trackposted to Pet's Garden Blog, Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, , and Faultline USAthanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Technorati Tags: Al-Qaeda Sunni Iraq Anbar Province Islamic Party of Iraq Al-Qaeda in Iraq Bill Roggio Erick Stakelbeck WashingtonPost.com LATimes.com Osama Bin Laden Afghanistan US Troops US Military War on Terror

Who Are We Really Fighting

By Jim Simpson Every day we hear more reports about the rising Islamist threat. Stephen Emerson reports alarmingly about the Islamists hidden among us. Al Qaeda is reportedly alive and spreading all over the world – morphing into a many headed snake. Meanwhile, Iran has moved from bluster to bully as it seizes British sailors on the open sea and blatantly ignores worldwide demands to cease its nuclear program, while continuing to arm Iraqi terrorists in direct defiance of the United States. Islamist militants in Palestinian-controlled areas and Lebanon visibly flex their muscles both militarily and diplomatically, while Muslims worldwide stridently demand absurdly special treatment in the non-Muslim societies where they have settled. As a friend once said, paraphrasing Trotsky: “You may not be interested in Islam, but Islam is interested in you.” Without diminishing the threat these worldwide activities pose, it is important nonetheless to recognize that they are a distraction, a deliberate provocation designed to keep our eyes focused on the wrong enemy. The true threat is and always has been the worldwide communist movement, spearheaded by the Soviet Union (oh sorry, I keep forgetting, “Russia,”) and Communist China. And given the cacophony currently being raised by their Islamist provocateurs, I fear the sucker punch is not long in coming. We are obsessed with routing out “al Qaeda” in Iraq but almost willfully ignore that the insurgency remains largely driven by the Iraqi Ba’athist party’s highly organized network, with assistance from their Ba’athist cousins in Syria. I fear that if we merely defeat al Qaeda, our misidentification of the enemy will lead us to give up the fight early, leaving the much more dangerous Ba’athist infrastructure in place. In such circumstances, we will soon be facing another Saddam. Similarly, it is easy to see a Shia-led Iraq fall into the Iranian camp if we leave. (I described this potential problem in great detail before the war started. See: Regime Change Means Eradicating the Ba’ath Party.) The Russians initially trained, funded and equipped the Ba'athists in both Syria and Iraq. They taught them the tactics being used now in Iraq against us. They continued to provide Saddam with military advice during the first Gulf war and at least the beginning of the current one, and I remain confident that they provide the Ba'athist insurgents with some manner of support to this day. They assisted in the removal of Saddam's WMD to Syria. According to defector Ion Pacepa, the former Romanian Intelligence chief, Russia long ago developed a contingency plan for all puppet states to hide WMD should Western powers appear close to exposing them. (Read all about that here.) Russia is helping Iran develop nuclear weapons. Russia’s Ba’athist puppets in Syria train and arm Iran’s Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, as well as practically every other terrorist group operating around the globe. As for Iraq, Russia is indifferent as to whether it falls under the Iranian sphere, or returns to Ba’athist rule. In either case, it’ll be just another puppet. Russia only cares that we lose. Russia's strategy has always been to use others to do their fighting for them. It is also to make surrogate powers a threat to the US in and of themselves, both as a tactic to distract us from the true threat and to help insure that we fire first at the wrong enemy if it ever comes to that. And just as the notion of "Stateless" terrorist groups is a red herring, so is that of "rogue states." (Note: to understand why the whole idea of “Stateless” terrorists is absurd, you need only examine the funding requirements for such activities and realize that their prospects for defeating a large nation unassisted are virtually zero. You have to believe that these groups have unlimited resources and will squander them on activities that can get them killed for no ultimate purpose. And if your answer is “Bin Laden” read here to understand why this is false too.) North Korea remains attached to Russia and China at the hip and does not operate independently on the world stage. It is just one front on the offensive line, as is Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Syria and so, so many others. I foresee for example, a possible scenario where a so-called “rogue state” like Iran or North Korea, fires a nuclear weapon at us. We respond in kind, and the Russians, feigning fear that they are the target, launch a massive retaliatory strike against us. Whoops, sorry comrade, our mistake! The US needs to get clearer on who and what we are fighting. For starters, we need to eliminate the Ba'athist power base and obliterate Iran’s covert networks to win a decisive victory in Iraq. This will demonstrate both to ourselves and our enemies that we can win this kind of war and serve as an object lesson to the enemy that we are capable of making their chosen tactics very expensive. By this measure we are currently losing. However, I fear that if we give up, it will be the last time any politician musters the political courage necessary to confront this kind of warfare, and we will continue to face more and more of it until we are an island alone in the world against a sea of enemies. At that point it will start here at home, or we will merely be given an ultimatum with nuclear blackmail, and our feckless political class will fold like a reed in the wind. For the longer term, we need to significantly increase both our military size and effectiveness – more troops, effective anti-missile defenses, as well as conventional weapons, where we may not have as much of an advantage as we think – and dramatically improve intelligence gathering. I am not optimistic that any of this will get done. But if Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat is elected in 2008, we will assuredly go in the polar opposite direction. Hard times ahead. Businessman and freelance writer Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst (1987-1993). His writings have been published in the Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. You may read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and Consequences.

Iraqi's Pefer TODAY to Saddam

This Sunday morning brings the news that many conservatives knew should be a reality, but couldn't confirm in the news. The March 18th UK Sunday TimesOnline reports this:

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services. The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

And, so there can be no claims that the poll was sabotaged by pollers with an agenda, this direct from the UK Sunday TimesOnline.com:

Officials in Washington and London are likely to be buoyed by the poll conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), a respected British market research company that funded its own survey of 5,019 Iraqis over the age of 18. The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a “surge” of more than 20,000 extra troops.

The TimesOnline.com on Maliki in February 2007 compared to September 2007:

The poll suggests a significant increase in support for Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister. Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.

Still on Maliki, a few paragraphs down in the article:

“We’ve been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised us was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government,” said Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. “Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism.”

The TimesOnline.com on Iraqi's and Civil War:

Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shi’ites.

And then, the UK TimesOnLine.com does some updating this weekend, in Iraqi neighborhoods:

This weekend comments from Baghdad residents reflected the poll’s findings. Many said they were starting to feel more secure on the streets, although horrific bombings have continued. “The Americans have checkpoints and the most important thing is they don’t ask for ID, whether you are Sunni or Shi’ite,” said one resident. “There are no more fake checkpoints so you don’t need to be scared.” The inhabitants of a northern Baghdad district were heartened to see on the concrete blocks protecting an Iraqi army checkpoint the lettering: “Down, down with the militias, we are fighting for the sake of Iraq.”

This only makes sense. Who can believe that life was better under Saddam? Only those who benefited from being an insider. Read the good news and the entire article at UK Sunday TimesOnLine.com Also reporting on television and online: Fox News: Only 27% of Iraqis say Country in Civil War Permalink for this entry: http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2007/03/iraqis-pefer-today-to-saddam.html Trackback URL for this entry: http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/2485635877158832830 Linked blogs may or may not coincide happily with Maggie's Notebook. Also talking about good news in Iraq:Outside the Beltway Stormwarning's Counterterroism with What Civil War? Gas Attacks and Future Stability. Excerpt: Clearly, the outcome of the Iraqi adventure is still too far off the predict, but in spite of the constant barrage of bad news and suicide bombers, along with the recent chlorine gas attack (Iraq gas attack makes hundreds ill), Trackposted to The Amboy Times Blog @ MoreWhat.com, sissunchi, Cao's Blog, Faultline USA, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. Technorati Tags: Jihad Iraq War on Terror Maliki Poll

Treading in Presidential Shoes: Who Would Obama or Clinton Ally With?

Barack Obama suggests that Australia should add to the 1400 Australian troops already in Iraq. This in response to Australian Prime Minister, John Howard's, opposition of Obama's plan to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by Spring 2008.

Obama's cheeky response smacks of the typical Left no-substance retort, ignoring the fact that Australia is an ally who has stepped-up to protect the backside of the likes of all the American Obama's in the world. If Obama has illusions of taking the Presidency, withdrawing U.S. troops and serving his term in a country void of Islamic conflict, then he lives in a fantasy world.

However, if he believes he may be Commander and Chief of a country under siege, he needs to review recent history, because it is likely, once again, that the UK and Australia will be the only countries to come to our aid, and even that is a doubtful scenario, given the lack of support some Americans have shown.

As Obama and both Democrat and Republican Presidential candidates lay-out their ideas, they will do well to put themselves in the current President’s shoes because chances are they will be forced to walk more than a mile in them. The question is: how will they walk?...toward freedom and liberty and being a force for good in the world, or....

And, what happens when France has their 9/11 moment, or Germany or Russia. As the next American President, who will Obama or Clinton choose to ally with? Prime Minister Howard had this to say: "You either rat on the ally or you stay with the ally.” Well, isn’t that the truth, and it brings to mind why the U.S. is today, fighting for our very way of life, without our once-upon-a-time ally, France, and we won’t even mention that was when they desperately needed us.

Here are a few reminders of the corrupt motivations and deeds of the French as they stalled any measures in the U.N. that would bring about productive actions against Saddam Hussein, and in support of the Iraqi people:

1) France wanted Iraqi oil, needed Iraqi oil - sold the soul of their country for Iraqi oil.

2) France was one of two countries most implicit in the Oil-for-Food scandal, receiving huge kickbacks, and consequently, supporting Saddam's abuse of the Iraqi people. Oil-for-Food money was also used to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, taking the lives of countless Israelis - abuses spanned the world.

This Washington Times Editorial, dated February 11, 2003, lays down the bones:

“...there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support from for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad..., France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That's because France and Russia profited from it:

The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.

Most disturbing are Iraqi records that suggest Benon Sevan, the executive director of the Oil for Food office, received a voucher for 11.5 million barrels of oil from Saddam's manipulation of the program — enough to yield a profit of between $575,000 and $3.5 million.

The beneficiary list (found in the archives of the Iraqi Oil Ministry and translated into English by the Middle East Media Research Institute) should be deeply embarrassing to many prominent people.

In the United States, those listed include Iraqi American businessman Shaker Al-Khaffaji, who put up $400,000 to produce a film by ex-U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, which aimed to discredit weapons inspections in Iraq.

Also, British Labor MP George Galloway, a strident foe of taking action against Saddam, is listed as a recipient or co-recipient of 19.5 million barrels.

Other recipients include: former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (12 million barrels); Patrick Maugein, CEO of the oil company Soco International and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac (25 million); former French Ambassador to the United Nations Jean-Bernard Merimee (11 million); Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri (10 million); and Syrian businessman Farras Mustafa Tlass, the son of longtime Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass (6 million). Leith Shbeilat, chairman of the anti-corruption committee of the Jordanian Parliament, received 15.5 million.

Note: Some paragraphing of the above Washington Times Editorial is mine to make for easier reading.

3) France had a decade-old program for selling large stockpiles of conventional weapons to Saddam and it is speculated that some of these weapons could be converted to biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.

4) Iraq was shooting at U.S. pilots over the no-fly zone. The world didn't care. As we protected the borders of others, to keep Saddam out of the places of others (where he wasn't wanted), Iraq put our pilots at risk, with foreign-made missiles (some thought to be French-made).

5) France got lucky. America didn't have the stomach to push forward with accusations of their illicit behaviors because of their status as a UN Security Council member

6) France has an unsettled Muslim community to deal with. I gave up my Boursin, Brie and my favorite French jug wine years ago. It was a pleasure to do so.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will both do well to realize that any presidential shoes they don will tread among the unscrupulous, the lying and cheating and the evilly devious. 

The War on Terror: First Principles & Why We Fight

"So what is really going on here?" asks Lawrence Henry's American Spectator article on First Principles: Why We Fight. Many Americans just cannot bear to ponder this issue any longer. The basic facts of 9/11 have fallen into an accusatory abyss: "There were no weapons of mass destruction," or "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." If we want to ponder the past, here's an issue at the root of this global war: What if Russia and France were not directly complicit, with Saddam Hussein, in what we refer to as the "Oil For Food Scandal." Without their relationship with Saddam, they would have nothing to hide. With their appalling complicity, they had to hide everything. Both countries thought they could keep secret their repugnant behavior (be darned those who desperately needed "the food for the oil,") because the U.S. would surely not go into Iraq without their approval. We did, and when we did, either the clouds cleared or the sky fell, depending on your perspective. We needed the world-body to stand-up. They didn't, although -- for the whole world to see, they resolved to do so and even put it down on paper through United Nations Resolutions. There would have been no war, at least not the war we have today. In addition to the Hussein-Russia-France-connection, we now have these "allies," Russia and France, furthering the aims of China, North Korea and Iran. We have some European leaders not giving a thought to the 9/11 casualties: American Airline's Flights 11 and 77 and United Airline's Flights 175 and 93, and those who died in the horror of The World Trade Center collapses. The "United Nations." What in the world does that mean? It should mean a uniting of Nations, but instead, it is a path to personal power and wealth. Resolutions are meaningless, so let us not work toward them, and then the United States can send the U.N headquarters to France, use the U.N. aid for something worthwhile and get on with business of keeping this country free, forever. Technorati Tags: Jihad Iran Iraq Islam War on Terror Saddam Hussein Oil for Food U.N. United Nations The American Spectator China North Korea Russia France United Flight175 United Flight 93 American Flight 11 American Flight 77 9/11 World Trade Towers World Trade Center Lawrence Henry