Democrat Congressman Delahunt Wants Terrorists to Harm Cheney’s Aide

Democrat Congressman Delahunt is for the terrorists. He wants them to kill Cheny’s aid. Sounds like a traitor to me. We are in a War declared by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. On page 47 of the 9/11 Commission section 2.1, it states “A Declaration of War.” In February 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri together issued a worldwide fatwa to all Muslims. The fatwa called for “the murder of any American, anywhere on earth.” Three months later bin Laden went on the say that “it was more important for Muslims to kill Americans than to kill other infidels.” “We do not differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned they are all targets.”

more about “Congressman Delahunt Wants Terrorists…“, posted with vodpod

What About Precedence?

The reality is there is no precedence for allowing enemy combatants the right of habeas corpus. In fact the opposite is true. In the Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950) case the US Supreme Court ruled that habeas corpus should not be given to WWII enemy combatants.

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting. Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus onalien enemies detained abroad by our military forces inthe course of an ongoing war. My problem with today’s opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thushas no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires. America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60–61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon inWashington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed. The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion playsupon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the warharder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces thedecision today. The President relied on our settled precedent in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950), whenhe established the prison at Guantanamo Bay for enemy aliens. have transported prisoners there, but would have kept them in Afghanistan, transferred them to another of our foreign military bases, or turned them over to allies for detention.  Those other facilities might well have been worse for the detainees themselves.

We should not negotiate with Terrorists

Wake up America! We can’t negotiate with terrorists.

From the Congressional Hearing: 9/11 Five Years Later: Gauging Islamist Terrorism (Serial No. 109–212)

You asked for a status report on all this, Mr. Chairman. I would just say that I think there have been some steps made in the right direction. I am encouraged by some of the statements coming out of the Administration, alas, very lately, about the character of the enemy and the nature of this ideological movement. But much, much more needs to be done. Specifically, I would suggest we need to get this country on a war footing, to mobilize it as we have in the past when we faced similar kinds of problems. We have to. And I commend Congressman Sherman for this. We have to bring coherence to this effort because whether it is the Khatami visit, or whether it is the notion that we can’t negotiate with the bin Ladens of the world, rightly so, but we can negotiate with their Shiia Islamofascist counterparts in Iran is crazy making and, I think, discredits our efforts.

It is imperative, moreover, that U.S. policy be coherent and that still is not always the case. For example, it was striking that, in his excellent speech before the Military Officers Association of America on September 5th, President Bush forcefully explained why it is not possible to appease or negotiate with Islamofascists like al Qaeda and its allies. He then proceeded to show convincingly that the behavior and ambitions of such Sunni extremists are shared by their Shia counterparts led by Iran. Yet, his State Department is actively promoting the notion that we can safely and successfully engage in negotiations with Islamofascists like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the ruling mullahs in Tehran.

from youtube.com posted with vodpod

What did Obama say in NC?

Meeting with our enemies has not been successful in the past. Specifically this is not recommended in dealing with Al Qaeda. I think Obama needs a history lesson.

In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon. In defending his stated intent to meet with America’s enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender. FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb. (Real Clear Politics) Read the full article for yourself.

From the September 7, 2006 Congressional Hearing 9/11 FIVE YEARS LATER: GAUGING ISLAMIST TERRORISM:

In order to defeat Al Qaeda the following recommendations are given to Congress:

I would just very quickly summarize some of those
ideological tools or counter ideological tools, if you would, as born
of very much the same sort of mindset that Ronald Reagan used
to defeat the last terrible totalitarian movement with global ambitions;
namely, Soviet communism. They are, in short, a comprehensive
strategy using energy, financial, legal and security measures,
and integrating them into what might be called a political warfare
program. Its goals should be to undermine and divide the enemy,
to split apart and peel away the enemy’s base, to deny the enemy
the social support infrastructure and, needless to say, the safe havens
that shelter its forces, fund its operations and provide its
cadre, pitting enemy factions against one another wherever possible,
and most especially, discrediting the ideological belief system
that legitimizes its cause

For example, it was striking that, in his excellent speech before the Military
Officers Association of America on September 5th, President Bush forcefully explained
why it is not possible to appease or negotiate with Islamofascists like al
Qaeda and its allies. He then proceeded to show convincingly that the behavior and
ambitions of such Sunni extremists are shared by their Shia counterparts led by
Iran. Yet, his State Department is actively promoting the notion that we can safely
and successfully engage in negotiations with Islamofascists like Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and the ruling mullahs in Tehran.

Friends and foes alike are affected in ways harmful to our interests by such a
manifest lack of consistency and principle. (One case in point is the recent, increasingly
aggressive behavior of Iran, both directly on the nuclear issue and in Iraq and
through its proxy, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. Another is the deal recently struck by our
putative ally, Pakistan with tribal leaders in its western territories, affording what
amounts to a safe haven there for al Qaeda.) The same applies to the American people. (p.16)

We have to bring coherence to this effort because whether it is the Khatami visit, or whether it is the notion that we can’t negotiate with the bin Ladens of the world, rightly so, but we can negotiate with their Shiia Islamofascist counterparts in Iran is crazy making and, I think, discredits our efforts. (p. 12)

win_war_against_alqaeda

How Reagan brought down the Soviet Union

I found a very interesting congressional hearing transcript that explains how Reagan brought down the Soviet Union (p.11, paragraph 5). It goes on to explain how this same model can be used to bring down al-Qaeda (p.14, paragraph 5).

Read the transcript for yourself.

Iraqi Police Officer says al-Qaeda was in Saddam’s Iraq

Interview of an Iraqi police officer that says al-Qaeda was in Saddam’s Iraq.

Read the interview for yourself.

Saddam and al-Qaeda

My article on Saddam and al-Qaeda has just been published today on American Thinker.com. Check it out!!!

Read the article for yourself.

Cafferty Compares Small Town America to al-Qaeda?

Good grief!!! Cafferty compares small town America to al-Qaeda? He thinks this is a good defense for Obama’s elitist remarks.

from www.politico.com posted with vodpod

Detainee talks of terror camp in Hussein-era Iraq

Video of an al-Qaeda terrorist describing being trained at a terrorist camp in Iraq and working with Fadayeen members and Osama bin laden on operations.

from regimeofterror.com posted with vodpod

Are We Winning in Iraq?

Are we winning in Iraq? Let’s see what al-Qaeda said in February 2008:

“Brothers, the truth is that I admire the intelligence of the present Crusader, General Petraeus, for through his intelligence and cleverness he was able to achieve in one month what his colleagues couldn’t achieve in five years. . . . After the sly Petraeus became in charge, he started to play his game with us unfairly. We established the Islamic State of Iraq, so he established the Awakening Council to fight it by the method of guerilla warfare, and they started setting up booby traps for the Mujahideen and detonated the explosive packages on them. Al-Furqan Media Foundation was formed, so he established a media council to defame the S[t]ate and to erase it media productions.”