posted November 02, 2006 02:22 PM            

Bush is dedicated to killing terrorists. demoScats want to give terrorists a "Terrorist Bill of Rights".

Bush intends to stay in Iraq until the elected Iraqi government can cope with internal and external security. demoScats want to cut and run and turn the country over to terrorists to establish an Islamic terrorist Caliphate headquartered in Iraq.

Ask a terrorist whom they want to win the November elections. Their response would be..."are you nuts"?..."Is that a trick question"? demoScats are the best friends we have on earth.

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Mideast terror leaders
to U.S.: Vote Democrat
Withdrawal from Iraq would embolden
jihadists to destroy Israel, America
Posted: November 2, 2006
9:27 a.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein
WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM –

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.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Jaara was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

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."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman.

The terror leaders spoke as the debate regarding the future of America's war in Iraq has perhaps become the central theme of midterm elections, with most Democrats urging a timetable for withdrawal and Republicans mostly advocating staying the course in Iraq.

President Bush has even said he would send more troops if Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad, said they are needed to stabilize the region

The debate became especially poignant following remarks by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the 2004 presidential candidate who voted in support of the war in Iraq. Earlier this week he intimated American troops are uneducated, and it is the uneducated who "get stuck in Iraq."

Kerry, under intense pressure from fellow Democrats, now says his remarks were a "botched joke."

Terror leaders reject Nancy Pelosi's comments on Iraqi insurgency

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."

Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."

Hamas' Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."

"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," Abdullah said.

While the terror leaders each independently compelled American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.

Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."

He called both Democrats and Republicans "agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S."

Abu Abdullah commented once Democrats are in power "the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it."

Still Jihad Jaara said the alternative is better than Bush's party.

"Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

posted November 02, 2006 02:43 PM            

Let me ask you, Why didn't the WND person kill the terrorist when he had the opportunity? Sounds like he aided the enemy by giving voice to the terrorists political agenda. Don't you think we should try this journalist for treason now?

posted November 02, 2006 02:59 PM            

For some strange reason, Nancy Pelosi won't even believe bin Laden declared war on the United States.

Just keep repeating, terrorists are our friends. Terrorists give us bad news from Iraq and that's good news for demoScats.

posted November 02, 2006 03:33 PM              

democrats..seem to not look ahead..at the end result..of their actions...

posted November 02, 2006 06:19 PM            

Have we entered the twilight zone or something?

posted November 02, 2006 06:39 PM            

Perhaps you don't recall the bin Laden tape urging the election of the traitor John Kerry..but I do.

Well, of course terrorists read on the World Net Daily website, why wouldn't they?

What else do they have to do during the day after they've had their daily morning briefing of US military and security secrets from the Treason Times?

posted November 03, 2006 01:40 PM            

Who is it who can be counted on by terrorists to give them sound bites to use in terrorist recruitment?

Who is it who says "America can't win in Iraq"?

Who is it who can be counted on to excoriate the US military while at the same time fixing blame for terrorist activities squarely on the United States?

Who is it who advanced a "Terrorist Bill of Rights" to protect their terrorist friends?

Who is it who has opposed every program to combat terrorists and terrorism the President has put forward?

Who is it who wants to respond to terrorists with criminal trials in American courts where terrorists would be given the full range of American citizens rights at trial?

It is undeniable, it's the power seeking, cowardly, terrorist friendly demoScats who by every word and deed show they are so totally corrupt, inept, seditious if not treasonous, insane and anti-America that they cannot ever be trusted with issues of American national security.

Rushing for the Exit
If we leave Iraq, what happens to the supporters of democracy?
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Oct. 30, 2006, at 6:14 PM ET

To say that "exit strategies" from Iraq have become the flavor of the month would be to exaggerate the situation to the point of absurdity. Exit strategies are not even the fall fashion. They are the regnant topic of conversation all across the political establishment and have been for some time. Even the Bush administration has some share in this discourse, having now abandoned the useless mantra of "staying the course" without quite defining what that "course" might be—or might have been. (A rule of thumb in politics is that any metaphor drawn from sporting activity is worse than useless, but at least one doesn't hear people saying that in Iraq we are "at the bottom of the ninth" or some such horse manure.)

Many of those advocating withdrawal have been "war-weary" ever since the midafternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, when it was discovered that the source of jihadist violence was U.S. foreign policy—a mentality now reinforced by the recent National Intelligence Estimate circulated by our emasculated, demoralized, and incompetent intelligence services. To this way of thinking, victory is impossible by definition, because any response other than restraint is bound to inflame the militancy of the other side. Since the jihadists, by every available account, are also inflamed and encouraged by everything from passivity to Danish cartoons, this seems to shrink the arena of possible or even thinkable combat. (Nobody ever asks what would happen if the jihadists had to start worrying about the level of casualties they were enduring, or the credit they were losing by their tactics, or the number of enemies they were making among civilized people who were prepared to take up arms to stop them. Our own masochism makes this contingency an unlikely one in any case.)

I am glad that all previous demands for withdrawal or disengagement from Iraq were unheeded, because otherwise we would not be able to celebrate the arrest and trial of Saddam Hussein; the removal from the planet of his two sadistic kids and putative successors; the certified disarmament of a former WMD- and gangster-sponsoring rogue state; the recuperation of the marshes and their ecology and society; the introduction of a convertible currency; the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan (currently advertising for investors and tourists on American television); the killing of al-Qaida's most dangerous and wicked leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and many of his associates; the opening of dozens of newspapers and radio and TV stations; the holding of elections for an assembly and to approve a constitution; and the introduction of the idea of federal democracy as the only solution for Iraq short of outright partition and/or civil war. If this cause is now to be considered defeated, by the sheer staggering persistence in murder and sabotage of the clerico-fascist forces and the sectarian militias, then it will always count as a noble one.

But the many disappointments and crimes and blunders (the saddest of which is the utter failure to influence Iran, and the corresponding advantage taken by Tehran-backed militias) do not relieve us of a responsibility that is either insufficiently stressed or else passed over entirely: What is to become, in the event of a withdrawal, of the many Arab and Kurdish Iraqis who do want to live in a secular and democratic and federal country? We have acquired this responsibility not since 2003, or in the sideshow debate over prewar propaganda, but over decades of intervention in Iraq's affairs, starting with the 1968 Baathist coup endorsed by the CIA, stretching through Jimmy Carter's unforgivable permission for Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, continuing through the decades of genocide in Kurdistan and the uneasy compromise that ended the Kuwait war, and extending through 12 years of sanctions and half-measures, including the "no-fly" zones and the Iraq Liberation Act, which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote. It is not a responsibility from which we can walk away when, or if, it seems to suit us.

Some time ago, I wrote rather offhandedly that the coalition forces in Iraq act as the defensive militia for those who have no militia. I get e-mails from civilians and soldiers in that country, as well as from its growing number of exiles, and this little remark generated more traffic than I have had in a while. Just look at the report in the Oct. 30 New York Times about the kidnapping of an Iraqi-American Army interpreter in the (still) relatively civilized Baghdad neighborhood of Karada. A few days earlier, according to the residents who tried with bare hands to stop the abduction, the same gang had been whipping teenage boys with cables for the crime of wearing shorts. (It is always useful to know what is on the minds of the pious.) A Sunday Washington Post headline referred to the "tipping point" in the erosion of congressional support for the Iraq intervention. Well, the "tipping point" between the grim status quo in Karada and its full-scale Talibanization is rather more acute. And does anyone want to argue that a Talibanized Iraq would not require our attention down the road if we left it behind us?

posted November 04, 2006 03:13 PM            

Alas, the demoScats are keeping mum on the subject.

demoScats refuse to denounce the terrorist endorsement, refuse to denounce the sources..including World Net Daily which broke the story and even refuse to denounce the terrorists themselves.

demoScats are effectively taking the 5th on the subject of their endorsement by well known terrorists from very well known terrorist organizations.

TRAIL OF TERROR
Democrats: 'No comment'
on terrorists' endorsement

DNC, Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy decline
to discuss jihadists' vote of confidence
Posted: November 3, 2006
5:00 p.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh

National leaders in the Democratic Party, including Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee, potential House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, possible presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and longtime party stalwart Ted Kennedy don't want to talk with WorldNetDaily about an endorsement their party has received.

The endorsement came via a WND article by Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein, who interviewed leaders of several prominent Mideast terrorist organizations, including Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Islamic Jihad.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, and infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Jaara and others told WND that they believe if the Democrats come into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

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."

But WND was unable to get a single comment from dozens of telephone calls made over two days and messages left with various leaders' offices and press secretaries.

"I'll see what we can do," was the best response WND obtained when asking for a comment on the endorsement, and that came from Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Hammill in Pelosi's office. It came on the third call to that office.

The Democratic National Committee was approached at least six times, and multiple messages were deposited on a voice mail system handled by the courteous Rosemary, who said, "We're extremely busy," but there was no response, even after one spokesman in Sen. Barack Obama's officer referred WND to the DNC because such a question would be in "Chairman Dean's" territory.

The Democratic Leadership Council's response to multiple phone calls was similar, a promise to call back later.

At least three messages left with Sen. Clinton's office went unreturned after a receptionist forwarded the calls to an answering machine, which informed WND that, "No one is available to take your call at this time."

Calls to Sen. Kennedy's office actually reached a live person, who listened to the request and promised, "If we're able to we'll shoot you something. We can't promise."

Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar's office generated a merry-go-round of telephone numbers. A call to his Washington office generated a referral to a Denver office, which generated a referral to a press office, which generated a referral to a cell phone. When a spokesman answered that number, the caller was referred back to the press office, which had an answering machine attached to the line. Leave a message.

A call to Sen. Harry Reid also allowed the caller to leave a message.

On the Republican side, Sen. Tom Tancredo, of Colorado, said those Mideast leaders are right – in one way.

He told WND that the assessment by terrorists who suggested U.S. voters choose the Democrats on Tuesday because they believe an expected removal of U.S. troops from the Mideast would hand their factions victory is hard to dispute.

"I guess the conclusion to which anyone could come … maybe they recognize that both the general nature of the Democratic Party and the people who are at its head are folks that would rather cut and run than stand their ground on an issue of this nature," he said.

"They're right. I also worry about a lot of things, the way the war has been prosecuted. But beyond Iraq, here's what I believe. I believe that there are more Republicans than Democrats that understand we are in a clash of civilizations.

"In fact the idea that Western civilization has advantages over other civilizations, that is not a concept that most Democrats would buy into and I think the radical Islamic groups recognize that," he said.

The president's recent statements also have given those factions reason to hope for better results under a Democrat Party leadership than the existing decision-makers.

"Our goal in Iraq is victory," Bush said during a campaign stop this week. "Victory in Iraq will come when that young democracy can sustain itself, and govern itself, and defend itself, and be a strong ally in the war against terrorists.

"The fighting in Iraq is tough, and I understand it's tough, and you know it's tough, and so does the enemy. They have no conscience. They kill innocent men, women and children. They film the atrocities, they broadcast them for the world to see. They offer no hopeful vision. The only thing they know is death and destruction.

posted November 04, 2006 09:29 PM            

Everyone who isn't delusional believes this story because it did appear in World Net Daily.

On the other hand, if this same story had appeared in the Treason Times, no one but the delusional would believe it.

demoScat leaders who believe they can ignore this story and evade comment are delusional. This isn't going away.

posted November 04, 2006 09:33 PM            

As part of Fox News Channel's coverage of a sensational WND story in which several Mideast terror leaders admitted they unanimously favor Democrats over Republicans in Tuesday's U.S. election, New York Rep. Peter King told host Neil Cavuto Democrats who want U.S. military troops out of Iraq actually are hurting the nation's security.

King, the chairman of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, appeared on Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto" program, and said the message that "too many Democrats" are sending "is that they are implying to the American people if they are elected they're going to get us out of Iraq."

He said when terrorists hear that, they believe they have won.

"We know what bin Laden thought when the U.S. left Somalia," he said. "The majority of Democrats were against reauthorizing the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance programs … then when they give the impression they are going to get us out of Iraq no matter what. The Democrats mean well but words have consequences."

"This is very damaging to us in the war against terrorism," he said.

posted November 05, 2006 12:59 AM              

quote:

---

He said that the terrorists realize they cannot defeat the U.S. military on the battle field, but they can weaken the will of the American people to continue to fight.

---

"The terrorists" have already weakened a lot of paranoid and scared Repbulican conservatives into giving up their freedoms and therefore they not only destroyed the twin towers on 9/11 but democracy as well. The right has played right into the hands of the terrorists in helping them destroy democracy in America.