Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WHY AL QAEDA'S HAPPY
By RICHARD MINITER
November 11, 2006 -- AMERICA'S enemies are gloating over this week's election results - and the Bush administration's air of imminent retreat. Meanwhile, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, the tremendously gifted Zalmay Khalilzad, is said to be on the way out.
"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament, they voted for a level of reason," said Ayyub al-Masri, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. In a recording posted on jihadi Web sites, he called Bush a "lame duck" and accused Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of "rushing to escape."
The group boasts of having 12,000 fighters in Iraq who have "vowed to die for God's sake." That is not a bluff, according to several high-ranking members of the intelligence community: Al Qaeda in Iraq is more dangerous than ever.
"Al Masri is much more effective than [Abu Musab al] Zarqawi," one intelligence officer told me. After U.S. forces killed Zarqawi in June, al Qaeda consolidated its control over tribal leaders and Sunni insurgents - who'd otherwise be starved for money and ammunition. Zarqawi's divisive lieutenants have been replaced. (One was found in a dumpster last week.)
And bin Laden's control is stronger than ever. Al Masri talks to al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al Zawahiri, on a daily basis.
After delighting in the Democrats victory and Bush's capitulations, Masri added: "We haven't had enough of your blood yet."
Tehran was also celebrating.
"This issue [the elections] is not purely a domestic issue for America, but is a defeat for Bush's hawkish policies," said Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "This defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."
This week, Iran is completing military exercises in the Gulf, testing a new long-range missile. It continues to develop atomic weapons, offer safe houses to some 500 al Qaeda terrorists (including three of bin Laden's sons, one of whom has married the daughter of a Revolutionary Guards general) and supports the Iraqi insurgency with money, bombs and men.
Stressing that he is not making a cheap political shot, American Enterprise Institute analyst Michael Rubin asks: "What policy shift does al Qaeda in Iraq welcome and why?"
For years, the left derided the Patriot Act, NSA wiretaps and other national-security measures as doing "exactly what al Qaeda wants." Now we know exactly what al Qaeda wants. Will that give governing Democrats any pause?
Yet it is too soon to blame the Democrats. They didn't court al Qaeda's endorsement - and won't be sworn in until January.
And it's past time to blame President Bush for his destructive reaction to the GOP's "thumpin'." He had to know America's enemies would see Rumsfeld's departure as a sign of weakness. If he was going to pull the trigger, the president shou;d've done it this spring, when his team debated Rumsfeld's exit.
Another awful signal: Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates is a "Bush I" crony who was on the National Security Council when Iraq's Shia and Kurds were betrayed and massacred. He also served on the Iraq Study Group, which is widely expected to offer a fig leaf for retreat. Not an encouraging signal for Iraq's embattled government.
But the most distressing change is probably the departure of Khalilzad. I'm told he'll go within a few weeks. He was respected across the political spectrum in Iraq, largely because he listened at length, spoke plainly and kept his word.
But Khalilzad doesn't want to be known as the "man who lost Iraq he's leaving to write a tell-all book.
His rumored replacement is Ryan Crocker, a State Department lifer now serving as ambassador to Pakistan. On his watch, Pakistan made a series of peace agreements with the Taliban and al Qaeda, essentially offering them safe haven to launch attacks on American and allied forces in Afghanistan.
He also stood by as Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf released some 2,500 al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners this year. Will he smile on similar deals with terrorists in Iraq?
The election results and Bush's response have only spurred on America's enemies. Here Democrats can lead. Using oversight and confirmation hearings, they can ask with delightful irony: Is Bush planning to "cut and run"? If not, they can demand a real, long-term plan to deter Iran from tearing apart Iraq's fledgling democracy.
That would be more than the congressional Republicans ever bothered to do.
After U.S. forces killed Zarqawi in June, al Qaeda consolidated its control over tribal leaders and Sunni insurgents - who'd otherwise be starved for money and ammunition. Zarqawi's divisive lieutenants have been replaced. (One was found in a dumpster last week.)
And bin Laden's control is stronger than ever. Al Masri talks to al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al Zawahiri, on a daily basis.
After delighting in the Democrats victory and Bush's capitulations, Masri added: "We haven't had enough of your blood yet."
Tehran was also celebrating.
The group boasts of having 12,000 fighters in Iraq who have "vowed to die for God's sake." That is not a bluff, according to several high-ranking members of the intelligence community: Al Qaeda in Iraq is more dangerous than ever.
Truly, I expect the Dems to denounce these proclamations, it hasn't happened as of nearly 6pm EST 11/11/06
Do you mean IF the Answer, they will expose themselves? I agree.Denouncing them is acknowledgement. The Dems DON'T want to go there. They will expose themselves to having to answer a LOT of questions they can't without indicting their entire stance since the 70s.
Do you mean IF the Answer, they will expose themselves? I agree.
