Feb 06 2006

2006 Democrat Contract With Al Qaeda

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today on my way to an afternoon meeting and he kept going on and on about the ‘Terrorist Bill of Rights’, which I thought was exactly what the Democrats seem to represent these days.

So, in a blatant rip-off of Rush’s excellent analogy, and another rip-off from the 1994 Congressional Republican Contract With America, I decided to save the liberal Democrats some time and create for them ‘The 2006 Congressional Democrat Contract With Al Qaeda to provide the same clarity of purpose and promise the Republicans provided America back in 1994.

This 2006 Congressional Democrat Contract With Al Qaeda lays out what the Democrat Party promises to do if they are given majorities in Congress this fall:

As Democrat Members of the House of Representatives, and as citizens seeking to join that body, we propose not just to change current policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print. We call this our Contract With Al Qaeda”

This year’s election offers the chance, after 4 years of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the Nation’s policies towards Al Qaeda. That historic change would be the end of government that is too focused in Iraq, too intrusive, and too obsessed with possible terrorist attacks. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the privacy of all peoples, including members of Al Qaeda here in the US.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Democrat majority will immediately pass the following major legislation, aimed at restoring the pre 9-11 mirage of security and world harmony and ending this Administration’s policies for National Security:

FIRST, we will finally kill the Patriot Act so that no member of Al Qaeda will fear using our libraries to access international websites, access their email, or do basic research on major US installations and population centers. We will guarantee full privacy due anyone who makes it to our shores without question. In addition, we will roll back all provisions that put terrorism on an equal footing with Drug Traffickers and Organized Crime, which we understand greatly insults members of Al Qaeda who consider themselves above drug lords.

SECOND, We will enact legislation to release all Al Qaeda members now held in custody in the GITMO Gulag, while providing legal counsel to all who have been unfairly detained during this unfortunate international misunderstanding between Al Qaeda and America. We will ensure all detainees have options for bail and parole so they can continue with their life’s efforts while the legal issues surrounding their detention are worked out. Every ex-detainee will be provided the services of an ACLU lawyer.

THIRD, we will pass legislation ensuring that all Al Qaeda members will be free from government monitoring of their phone calls and emails with comrades back home monitored without probable cause. Probable cause will not include the normal desire to call home to friends and family. We see this act as protecting US citizens and Al Qaeda alike from warrantless surveillance.

FOURTH, as part of our revamping of immigration laws, we will ensure Al Qaeda members are treated the same as any other illegal immigrant now in America. We will provide you amnesty, a driver’s license, health care and education support once you are able to sneak past our borders.

FIFTH, as with warrantless electronic surveillance and in anticipation of pending civil lawsuits, we plan to pass legislation that bans warrantless searches of person and luggage at airports and other major transportation centers. It makes no sense to allow random searches of travelers if we are going to end targeted surveillance of communications. And we find both actions to be religious profiling and against the common sense norms of all liberal Americans.

SIXTH, Also, in line with the unfair targeting of Al Qaeda communications and persons travelling, we plan to submit legislation ending the practice of no-fly lists. This practice is biased towards people with common names and has limited the rights to travel of nuns and babies in the past.

SEVENTH, in an effort to demonstrate our sincere apologies for the actions of President Bush towards Al Qaeda, we plan to return the State of Iraq to the despot dictator of Al Qaeda’s choice by calling for the immediate withdrawal of our military forces to the safety of European soil. We encourage Al Qaeda to do what they please with the Iraqi people.

EIGHTH, we will submit and pass legislation that will mandate any questioning by US agents of Al Qaeda members to (a) be done in the presence of an ACLU lawyer, (b) never last more than 30 minutes, (c) be done indoors, in climate controlled conditions, (d) include an offering of proper food and beverage and (e) require every question to use the word ‘please’.

NINETH, we promise to immediately begin impeachment of Al Qaeda’s most dangerous enemy, the Imperial President W Bush, and we will promise to not stop our efforts until we have removed this thorn in Al Qaeda’s side – even if we have to make up scandals to get it done.

We the undersigned candidates of the Democrat National Party do swear that if elected, and given control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, we will enact the above Contract With Al Qaeda.

32 responses so far

32 Responses to “2006 Democrat Contract With Al Qaeda”

  1. ggda says:


    About time someone said it! Great article, and one which stays in my all tiime10 best. I read almost everything Ican, and publish when and where I can. My only regret is that I did not writte the artice you wrote! Terrific. Keep it up.

    Jerry D.

  2. Jasyn Jones says:

    “Well, since you bring up the “Contract With America,” perhaps we could quote the first two items our Republican leaders of yore found important to include:
    “FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
    “Apparently the executive is exempt from this clause?”

    You’re a genius Frank. Golly, you’ve eviscerated the whole article. Or not.

    Son, if you’re going to dump on something, do your homework first, otherwise you just end up looking like an idiot.

    Like now.

    You don’t know, or likely care, but before 1994, Congress passed a whole host of legislation, like minimum wage laws, maximum hours per week laws and other “labor-friendly” laws it excluded itself from following. Work for Ford, you’re protected. Work for Congress, no such luck.

    The Contract with America promised to apply these laws- which Democrats assured us were utterly necessary, then excluded themselves from- to Congress.

    Frank, buddy, the reason why the Executive wasn’t mentioned is because the Executive branch already had to follow those laws. The only people who didn’t, was Congress.

    Feel embarrassed? You should.

    “SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;”

    “Time will tell if the political pressure leading to the current investigation will lead to a sincere “audit” of the apparent disregard for the law by the Bush administration.”

    I’m afraid you got me here. I’d like to refute this, but it’s total gibberish. It makes no sense.

    Cw/A promised to cut down on fraud and waste by launching an audit of the nation’s finances. What this has to do with “auditing the Bush administration’s disregard for the law” is unclear.

    You’ve made no case that Bush has disregarded laws, you’ve not explained what an “audit” of such actions would be, and you haven’t explained why this comment applies at all to the 1994 Republican Congress.

    It’s obvious that you had no substantive point with this post, you just wanted to whine, so you could feel better about hating Bush.

    “Rather try to fit any oversight into the talking point of “Democrats = soft on terror”?”

    So, and let me get this straight, banning eLint operations against Al Qaeda agents operating within our borders is “oversight” not “being soft on terror.”

    Denying the government the ability to use the same tools against terrorists that it has used for 30 years against drug lords and Mafia dons is “oversight” not “being soft on terror.”

    Allowing free, unmonitored traffic across our borders is “oversight” not “being soft on terror.”

    These are curious positions, Frank, as none- not one- actually involves any oversight at all. Oversight is when you monitor actions. You just want to forbid them.

    So you tell me, Frank, why it’s a good idea to forbid the government from surveilling Al Qaeda, from gathering intel, from protecting our borders. Hmm?

    All of your positions bid fair to cripple our abilities to fight this war. That sounds like “soft on terror” to me.

    Have a nice day.

  3. 2006 Democratic Contract with Al Qaeda

    Epiphany: after hearing an EIB broadcast regarding terrorists and their perceived “rights”, AJ Strata arrived at a stunning idea. Why not officially enunciate the Democratic position on Al Qaeda with the same clarity of vision and purpose that the GO…

  4. JGaffney says:

    You forgot one more thing. Add to the Seventh Point: The Congress will vote appropriations to pay reparations to Saddam’s government for the destruction of government properties, and for the gross inconviencing of Saddam’s imprisonment and trial.

  5. megapotamus says:

    Let’s see what our choices are here. (With apologies to the Hon John Lewis.)

    We have from the Democrats; A Contract WITH Al Queda
    With Dub and the Reps; A Contract ON Al Queda.

    Decisions, decisions…

  6. The Council Has Spoken!

    AJ Strata at the Strata-Sphere composed the winning Council post this week with a satirical 2006 Democrat Contract With Al Qaeda … at least I think it was meant to be satirical, though with the behavior of some of the

  7. Weasel reads

    If you haven’t had your fill of “comic jihad” or “cartoonistan” yet and are wondering where to find some fresh commentary and perspectives, check out the latest winning posts from the Watcher’s Council (or the complete list of nominees).

  8. […] So the Democrat plan for 2006 is to surrender to Al Qaeda and Impeach Bush for starting this whole ‘justice for 9-11′ mess. Well, I did give them a head start on their 2006 policy goals! […]

  9. […] made predictions about what a Democrat Congress would do to this country. I captured it in a “2006 Democrat Contract With al Qaeda“, and everything in that prediction came to pass – except the ability of the Democrats to […]

  10. […] I noted in my Democrat Contract With al Qaeda back in February 2006, the left is still making good on its promises to help our enemies:  SECOND, We will enact […]

  11. […] would attempt to coddle terrorists by shifting our policies if they won office. I coined it The Democrat Contract With al-Qaeda (a parody on the GOP’s 1994 Contract With America). It was a series of outrageous predictions […]

  12. […] terror and created a twisted variant of the 1994 GOP Contract with America and turned it into the 2006 Democrat Contract With al Qaeda. It was meant to be a warning to all those who thought we could try out a radicalized liberal […]