I am cross-posting the below essay by Roger Gardner, my colleague at Radarsite, in its entirety. It also includes a couple of articles I think merit strong consideration.
A message from Radarsite:
"Is there some subtle distinction between the 'persuadables' and the 'undecideds'? If so, I guess I am not politically astute enough to discern it. However I will say this: if two days before this fateful election you are truly undecided, I find this utterly incomprehensible. Where in the world have you been? What more would it take to move you? If at this late date you are still undecided this means you have remained untouched by the enormous accumulative weight of all of those infamous Obama scandals. All of Reverend Wright's 'Goddam Americas', all of the sinister implications of Obama's Ayers/Weathermen associations, Obama's outrageously cynical manipulations of our troop withdrawal timetables in Iraq, the Rezko scandals, the 'New Party' scandals, his radical African connections, and on and on and on -- none of this had any effect on you whatsoever. You still remain undecided. To me this is incredulous.
However, the purpose of this essay -- this final essay -- is not to admonish you, but to appeal to you. And yet if none of the above outrages have moved you from your adamant indecision, what can I possibly bring up here that would do the trick? There is I believe one last argument, one final outrage that just might do it. And it is this:
It is inarguable that our American troops are fighting and dying on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and even occasionally Pakistan. They are fighting our sworn enemies, enemies who go by multiple names but who are essentially the same people driven by the same bloodthirsty ideology -- Al Qaeda, the Taliban. etc. Whether or not you may have approved of these original military decisions is a moot point: our troops are there and the battles rage on. And our enemies have clearly defined themselves and their goals. They are not undecided, they are not persuadable.
Now I don't know about you but if I found out that our enemy's goals were endorsed and promoted by one of our presidential candidates, if I discovered that our enemy's most respected leaders were calling for the destruction of the opposition party, the Republicans, it would most certainly give me pause. In fact I would find it highly embarrassing to say the least. How could I possibly support a candidate who was enthusiastically supported by our enemies, a candidate whose stated foreign policies would work to their advantage? These facts alone would obliterate my indecision.
This then is my final plea. Please read the following two articles and decide for yourselves how you could in good conscience vote for Barack Hussein Obama." - rg
Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": Web video
From Reuters
Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:15pm EDT
DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting.
"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.
Libi, a top al Qaeda commander believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.
The remarks were the first from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies.
Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain.
Some posters have also argued over the merits of trying to attack the United States before the election or waiting until later, the report said.
But SITE said it did not expect al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to openly favor a candidate.
"To support a particular candidate would debase al-Qaeda's long-standing argument that the United States government is a corrupt institution no matter who is at the helm," SITE director Rita Katz said in the group's November newsletter.
In 2004 bin Laden issued his first video in more than a year just days before the U.S. elections. It derided Bush and warned of possible new September 11-style attacks.
Bin Laden made little mention of Bush's Democratic challenger, John Kerry, telling Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."
Kerry has attributed his loss in part to the video's high-profile reminder of the terrorism issue.
In 2006, after Democrats captured Congress, Zawahri issued an audio message saying all Americans remained al Qaeda's enemies regardless of party, SITE said.
SITE said militant postings on al Qaeda-linked websites typically discuss Obama in terms of his race, or his religion and foreign policy. Some forecast a racial crisis dividing the United States if he wins. Others say his planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.
Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been portrayed as likely to allow "the continuation of Republican control and aggressive policies toward the Islamic world."
(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen in Washington; editing by Chris Wilson)
(dubai.newsroom@reuters.com)Obama on Iraq: Two Disturbing Alternatives
1. The Terrorists On The Importance Of Iraq:
Osama Bin Laden: Baghdad Is "The Capital Of The Caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War … Raging In [Iraq]." BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "This Is A War Of Destiny Between Infidelity And Islam." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Whole World Is Watching This War And The Two Adversaries; The Islamic Nation, On The One Hand, And The United States And Its Allies On The Other. It Is Either Victory And Glory Or Misery And Humiliation." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04
Ayman al-Zawahiri: We Must "Establish An Islamic Authority … Over As Much Territory As You Can To Spread Its Power In Iraq … [And] Extend The Jihad Wave To The Secular Countries Neighboring Iraq." ZAWAHIRI: "So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq … The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity." (Complete Text Of Al-Zawahiri Letter To Al-Zarqawi, 7/9/05, Available At: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20051011_release.htm, Accessed 9/5/06)
Bin Laden: "The War Is For You Or For Us To Win. If We Win It, It Means Your Defeat And Disgrace Forever." BIN LADEN: "Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help." (Bin Laden Threatens New Operations, Offers 'Long-Term Truce,' Posted On Al-Jazirah Net, 1/19/06)
2. Barack Hussein Obama on Iraq War:
"Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed."
Q: Is Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is
bringing security to Iraq?
A: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close. That's why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year. We're back to where we started back in 2006.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007
Q: If you get us out of Iraq and somehow al Qaeda takes over anyway, what will you do then?
A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8,2007
"A short message from Radarsite: Anyone who has read the captured correspondence of the Al-Qaeda leaders concerning the importance that they attach to Iraq, and the central role that Iraq plays in their scheme for a world-wide Caliphate knows how delighted they would be if we followed the advice of Barrack Hussein Obama, and shifted our focus and resources from the oil-rich center of gravity in Iraq, the universally acknowledged keystone to the Middle East, to the mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan.
It is the opinion of this writer, that if we abandoned the Land of the Two Rivers to the enemy now, the long-term strategic consequences of this monumental blunder for our GWOT would be nothing less than disastrous. The idea that we could somehow return to the area if it at some point in the future it became infested with Al-Qaeda is at best naive and ludicrous, and at worst naggingly suspect.
Nothing would suit our enemies in Iraq better than a publicly proclaimed schedule of withdrawal of our troops and their eventual complete pullout.
To this particular observer the absurdity of this plan, which so obviously plays into our enemy's game presents us with one of two troubling alternatives: Either it was purposely designed to enhance the chances for our defeat in this crucial region of the Middle East and enhance the capabilities of our sworn Al-Qaeda enemies, or it is the dangerously delusional bumblings of a hopeless amateur." rg
Original Radarsite article published 2/27/08
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
As I struggle to stifle a yawn, I once again must point out the following:
All of Reverend Wright's 'Goddam Americas'
I've asked you before, and I'll ask you again, what evidence do we have that this was the sort of thing that Wright said all the time except for a short soundbite that Fox News loved to run over and over again?
And again, from what I've read, Wright usually said the same kind of preacher stuff that all the rest of them do.
Hmmm...I smell that dead horse again.
Lance,
So you are saying that Wright was just having a bad day when he made that sermon after 9-11? He never said anything like that at any other time? Did you watch his talk at the Nat press Club (I think that was the venue)?
If we mention Wright, it's a dead horse? If we mention Pfleger, Ayres, Rezko, Khalidi, it's a dead horse?
Ummm...having a bad day after 9/11? Yeah, I have no problem believing that. I'm pretty sure the whole country was having a bad day.
And yes, all of those other things are dead horses, considering that it's only the right wing echo chamber that even cares. As I've told you before, I have no reason to defend Obama, but there's such a complex game of connect-the-dots with these guys that I always end up scratching my head and saying, "What's the big deal?"
I think that the things that actually come out of Sarah Palin's mouth (like the fact that she thinks that the VP's job is to be "in charge of the Senate") worry me much more than the stuff that people that Obama has had contact with have said or done.
Lance,
You missed my point-again. Most Americans were not saying, "God damn America" after 9-11.
It is no so complex to connect the dots between Obama-Wright-Pfleger-Ayres- Dohrn-Acorn- Rashidi-Rezko. This is not exactly a complicated flow chart. Obama has spent his life associating with folks who don't much care for America. He has to answer for that. All we hear is lame excuses.
And that's a lot more important and worrisome to me than any dopey statement made by Palin.
Palin never said, "God damn America".
Palin is not a convicted felon.
Palin never set off any bombs and says she didn't do enough.
Palin was never involved with the PLO-when the PLO was actively engaged in terror.
When you say it's a dead horse, you sound like the Dem apologists who keep saying, "That's old news".
Lance,
You missed my point-again. Most Americans were not saying, "God damn America" after 9-11.
It is no so complex to connect the dots between Obama-Wright-Pfleger-Ayres- Dohrn-Acorn- Rashidi-Rezko. This is not exactly a complicated flow chart. Obama has spent his life associating with folks who don't much care for America. He has to answer for that. All we hear is lame excuses.
And that's a lot more important and worrisome to me than any dopey statement made by Palin.
Palin never said, "God damn America".
Palin is not a convicted felon.
Palin never set off any bombs and says she didn't do enough.
Palin was never involved with the PLO-when the PLO was actively engaged in terror.
When you say it's a dead horse, you sound like the Dem apologists who keep saying, "That's old news".
Lance,
You missed my point-again. Most Americans were not saying, "God damn America" after 9-11.
It is no so complex to connect the dots between Obama-Wright-Pfleger-Ayres- Dohrn-Acorn- Rashidi-Rezko. This is not exactly a complicated flow chart. Obama has spent his life associating with folks who don't much care for America. He has to answer for that. All we hear is lame excuses.
And that's a lot more important and worrisome to me than any dopey statement made by Palin.
Palin never said, "God damn America".
Palin is not a convicted felon.
Palin never set off any bombs and says she didn't do enough.
Palin was never involved with the PLO-when the PLO was actively engaged in terror.
When you say it's a dead horse, you sound like the Dem apologists who keep saying, "That's old news".
RE: Khalidi, it's already been shown and proven that McCain gave almost half a million dollars to his group. So that should at least take that one name off the table, I would think. I gave you a link that even had pictures of the original tax forms proving it.
Also, I don't know if you heard, but al Qaeda recently said they were hoping for a McCain win. So at best we are getting very mixed signals from them, and as a result I wouldn't give any credence to what they say one way or the other.
Was McCain on some committee that did this or what? That may be the case that he signed off on some "peace" initiative that Khalidi was involved in, but I don't imagine that Mccain ever met Khalidi. Obama was a pal. They had dinner at each other's houses.
It is no so complex to connect the dots between Obama-Wright-Pfleger-Ayres- Dohrn-Acorn- Rashidi-Rezko. This is not exactly a complicated flow chart.
Actually, it's one of the most convoluted things I've ever seen in my life. Apparently, the board that Obama was on with Ayers also had some Republicans. Maybe he's a closet Republican! Yawn!
And this Acorn thing is much ado about nothing - they had some employees who were lazy. It's hardly the far-reaching conspiracy that conservatives want it to be. Yawn!
And the Rezko thing...ugh. I suggest you look up the term "Occam's Razor."
Obama has spent his life associating with folks who don't much care for America. He has to answer for that. All we hear is lame excuses.
Actually, I've found his explanations to be quite thoughtful and complex. But "conservatives" don't like thoughtful and complex answers. They like slogans and catchphrases, and he doesn't attempt to answer on those terms.
And that's a lot more important and worrisome to me than any dopey statement made by Palin.
It doesn't bother you at all that the person who's running for VP, the one you will vote for, doesn't seem to have the first clue as to what her job is? That's not troublesome? She actually thinks that she'll run the Senate! She's not even qualified to pass the government portion of the GED, much less run the country!
Palin never said, "God damn America".
Palin is not a convicted felon.
Palin never set off any bombs and says she didn't do enough.
Palin was never involved with the PLO-when the PLO was actively engaged in terror.
Yeah, and neither is Obama to all of those things. And hasn't the whole thing about Khalidi being in the PLO turned out to be bogus? And even if it isn't, don't you think that we should pay more attention to what Obama says regarding these issues than what some guy he once heard says about these issues? (Or what some guy might have said about these issues.)
And I'll stick by what I said. For all you know, Wright only said that one time, and to assume that he said it all the time and keep writing as though he did do that is flat-out dishonest on your part. Like I've said before, from what I've read, that wasn't his usual sort of sermon.
Ahh...but who cares about that. His usual sort of sermon doesn't get the viewers of Fox News all paranoid.
Okay so giving almost $500k to the guy to help further his causes is better than attending and speaking at a dinner in his honor? That is some bizarre reasoning there.
McCain was the chairman (in other words, the head) at the time of the International Republican Institute, which is the group that gave the money.
Don't take my word for it. Here is the tax document showing it. The relevant part is on the 14th page of that document, "5180 West Bank: CPRS."
OK Lance, you have cleared Obama of all charges. According to you, Obama is a Boy Scout. According to you, Wright only said that one time. Forget the statements of the Church itself that talked about 12 points all doing with "black" values. Wright's church is a church based on black liberation theology. Obama himself in one of his statements actually acknowledged being present on some occasions when controversial statements were made (before he went back to "I was never there"-"I never knew").
And Michael Pfleger only went berzerk one time when he was ridiculing Hillary Clinton in racial terms-Oh, yes- there was the time he said at a rally against a gun store owner that they were going to snuff him out like a rat.
Rezko means nothing-forget about that house Obama bought with Rezko. Forget about all the other financial dealings.
Forget Ayres-he was just a well-respected professor who happened to live in the neighborhood.
Forget Khalidi. So what if Obama and he are friends.
Nope, Obama is clean as a whistle.
Last point. Can we keep the word "dishonest" out of the discussion? I may make a factual error here and there, but I express what is my opinion.
Lance,
As I research this Republican Institute myself, can you tell me what the money was given for?
Gary, there are so many strawmen there that I don't know where to start. I'm just saying that there's a lot of picking and choosing of his relationships, and there are a lot of mental acrobatics that need to be done to say that those are his values. I mean, the guy has talked (and written) about what he believes. Maybe we could go to the source on this one, eh?
As for dishonest - okay, maybe not the right word. Disigenuous though.
My point is that I don't know what Wright's sermons were like. You don't either though, and basing it all on that one clip is what's disingenuous.
Part of my rationale is that one article that I linked here quite some time ago. It was a white guy who said that he had attended Wright's church and was always made to feel very welcome there.
I'm not a big fan of divisive terms like "black values" either, but then again, I'm not black, and maybe if I was I'd feel different. Still, it's hardly the same thing as somebody talking about things like "white values." To pretend like it's the same is to ignore several hundred years worth of history.
So I guess Wright is supposed to be pardoned for all he said about this country? The liberal illuminati even felt it was wrong, so please don't start talking about how nice this guy is.
Post a Comment