There’s certainly no ambiguity as to who these guys wants to win.

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.

And there’s more.

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.”

Read the rest of this entry

James Taranto’s “Best of the Web Today” today has an e-mail from a soldier in Iraq. With his experience with what’s going on with the Army, the culture and the changing circumstances, his suggestion is that the correct policy needs to be something between “stay the course” and “cut and run”. It seems to me to be a very insightful look at reality there. Some of his suggestions are, I’ll admit, tough to swallow if indeed they’d be necessary. Definitely worth the read (and as always, getting the daily e-mail of this column is recommended). He concludes:

James, there’s a lot more to this than I’ve written here. The short of it is, the situation is salvageable, but not with “stay the course” and certainly not with cut and run. However, the commitment required to save it is something I doubt the American public is willing to swallow. I just don’t see the current administration with the political capital remaining in order to properly motivate and convince the American public (or the West in general) of the necessity of these actions.

At the same time, failure in Iraq would be worse than a dozen Somalias, and would render us as impotent and emasculated as we were in the days after Vietnam. There is a global cultural-ideological struggle being waged, and abdication from Iraq is tantamount to concession.

Later, Taranto quotes Nancy Pelosi, who’d most likely be Speaker of the House after a majority Democrat win.

“But you don’t think that the terrorists have moved into Iraq now?” Stahl continues.

“They have,” Pelosi agrees. “The jihadists in Iraq. But that doesn’t mean we stay there. They’ll stay there as long as we’re there.”

She seems to think (or is trying to sell us on the idea) that the moment we leave, all will be well with the world and the jihadists will become model citizens or at least stop attacking American interests. As the sergeant tells us (gotta read the whole thing), there’s more going on than just terrorism, and it’s not easily dealt with, and especially not dealt with by running away.

Technorati Tags: James Taranto, Iraq, Middle East, war, terrorism, Nancy Pelosi, stay the course, cut and run

Look to the prisons to find out where our next terror cell may be created.

The spread of an especially virulent form of Islam within American prisons is obvious to those of us who have spent time in these prisons. It’s the rest of American society that is in denial. Now, thanks to a new study, ignorance is no longer an option.

The study, titled “Out of the Shadows,” concluded that “the U.S. . . . is at risk of facing the sort of homegrown terrorism currently plaguing other countries.” The source of that risk, according to researchers from George Washington University and the University of Virginia, is “[America’s] large prison population.”

“Radicalized prisoners” within this population “are a potential pool of recruits by terrorist groups,” the study says. The sources of radicalization are incarcerated Islamic extremists and outside organizations that support them. The report notes that the absence of “monitoring by authoritative Islamic chaplains” permits “materials that advocate violence [to infiltrate] the prison system undetected.”

Some of this material is provided by known al-Qaeda affiliates. It “[urges Muslim prisoners] to wage war against non-Muslims who have not submitted to Islamic rule.” As a former employee of a radical Islamist group who is now a Christian told a Senate committee, “I know of only a few instances in which prisons rejected the literature we attempted to distribute—and it was never because of the literature’s radicalism.”

Would it surprise you to know that a program that’s been successful in curbing this radical form of religious zealotry is under attack? The Left in this country just can’t abide success when Christianity’s involved. And Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship is feeling the heat, although it may be the rest of us feeling it if they are shut out from the countries prisons.

The study recommends the creation of a federal commission to “investigate this issue in depth.” It says that an “objective risk assessment” is “urgently needed” so that “officials [can] address this issue now, rather than [managing] a crisis later.”

I agree wholeheartedly, but let’s get on with this. We already know what the study has concluded. I’ve been telling “BreakPoint” listeners and readers and Prison Fellowship supporters about this for years. Now we have more than anecdotal evidence. We have a study from two prestigious universities on our side.

Still, I can’t help but note an irony here: The largely unimpeded spread of radical Islam through our prisons coincides with increased opposition to the one really successful antidote—that is, the presence of Christianity.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State are so concerned about the spread of Christianity, and apparently not so concerned about the breeding of new terrorists, that they’re suing Prison Fellowship in Iowa. They’re trying to remove a successful program that is 60% funded by private money. Fortunately, PF has a number of folks in its corner, including the Attorneys General from 9 other states who are more concerned with our safety than they are with a misreading of the First Amendment (essentially the elevation of a phrase in a private letter to that of constitutional law).

Here’s to PF’s success. It may well be a matter of national security.

Technorati Tags: Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Christianity, Islam, Iowa, first amendment

Ah, the wonders of a UN resolution. The peacekeeping troops are there, and they’re doing…what, exactly?

One month after a United Nations Security Council resolution ended a 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia, members of the international force sent to help keep the peace say their mission is defined more by what they cannot do than by what they can.

They say they cannot set up checkpoints, search cars, homes or businesses or detain suspects. If they see a truck transporting missiles, for example, they say they can not stop it. They cannot do any of this, they say, because under their interpretation of the Security Council resolution that deployed them, they must first be authorized to take such action by the Lebanese Army.

The job of the United Nations force, and commanders in the field repeat this like a mantra, is to respect Lebanese sovereignty by supporting the Lebanese Army. They will only do what the Lebanese authorities ask.

And many in the Lebanese Army support the aims of Hezbollah, so you’re not going to see much on that front.

The Security Council resolution, known as 1701, was seen at the time as the best way to halt the war, partly by giving Israel assurances that Lebanon’s southern border would be policed by a robust international force to prevent Hezbollah militants from attacking. When the resolution was approved, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one of its principal architects, said the force’s deployment would help “protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area.”

But the resolution’s diplomatic language skirted a fundamental question: what kind of policing power would be given to the international force? The resolution leaves open the possibility that the Lebanese Army would grant such policing power, but the force’s commanders say that so far, at least, that has not happened.

The UN backs up its toothless resolutions with toothless “peacekeepers” that let Hezbollah rearm in broad daylight. Is this what they meant in the resolution by “disarming” them? They’ve kicked the problem down the road and pretend they’ve solved it.

In the meantime, it appears that the world body’s outrage is all spent, or at least it’s selective. When Israel fought back, the UN acted (well, for loose interpretations of the word “act”). When Palestinians lob rockets into Israel, the UN yawns.
Read the rest of this entry

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai gives us some perspective on the war on terror.

“Terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11 … These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards,” Karzai said. “They came to America on September 11, but they were attacking you before September 11 in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan.

“Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or woman to jump from that high?” Karzai asked recalling some of the more shocking scenes from the World Trade Center bombing. “How do we get rid of them? … Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?”

A rhetorical question that shouldn’t need an audible answer.

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, war on terror, terrorism, 9/11

Captain Ed participated in a forum at Macalester College on the Iraq War last night. He posted his opening remarks on his blog, and I think it’s a great overall view of why the war was the right thing to do in general, even if, as happens in most wars, the execution wasn’t and isn’t letter-perfect.

He has a follow-up post this morning on how it all went.

by Michael W. Smith.

[youtube]P8Xm5Za_QU4[/youtube]

Five years later, I fear we’ve forgotten the reason we came together those weeks and months after 9/11. It’s not the flag, but the flag reminds us of the reason. We are a diverse nation that can come together as we have done so many times in the past. It can still happen, if we remember why we fight and what’s at stake.

The first response to the attacks in September, 2001 was on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania. It would be a pity if we’ve already forgotten why they fought. They had a clarity we’re losing. They had a purpose that’s getting foggy in the minds of too many Americans.

We were united. We can still be. Remember why.

Previous 9/11 posts:

Remember

Michelle Malkin has the (illustrated) transcript of President Bush’s speech about the status of CIA-held terrorists. Turns out they’re going to get Geneva Convention treatment. The reason I find this wrong on its face can be found in the President’s speech.

The terrorists who declared war on America belong to no nation, wear no uniform. They operate in the shadows of society.

But that’s precisely who the Geneva Convention is not written to protect! It’s designed to foster the rules of warfare, in that the armies are of a particular, signatory nation, wear an identifiable uniform, and don’t hide among civilians. This is precisely why they shouldn’t get the Geneva treatment. Doing so thusly confers no benefit on those who bother to fight by the agreement. If there’s no personal benefit to fighting in a way that, for example, minimized civilian casualties (e.g. the wearing of identifiable uniforms, not hiding among the populace), there are plenty of terrorists and rogue nations out there that simply won’t do it. For them, there’s no downside. By supposedly being magnanimous now, we’re sacrificing civilians down the road.

Read the rest of this entry