Nov 12 2006

Al Qaeda Prepares To Send Signal To World & Dems

Published by at 12:45 pm under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT

When I posted that Bin Laden and Olbermann would be the two happiest people on the planet with a Democrat sweep of Congress a lot of liberals thought I was being harsh – until of course Al Qaeda and Iran and the Palestinians cheered the Democrat win. Then a little later I posted on my fears that Al Qaeda would not let the momentum they perceived (or wanted to create) in their cries of success on the Dems win slow down, and that they would be sending signals to the US media and Democrats. Well, it could very well be that these signals are in the process of being sent if we look at the news out todat.

First we have India renewing its security clamp down at their airports after the FBI issued warnings that Al Qaeda is planning on highjacking US planes for a 2nd 9-11.

“We sounded an alert after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) forwarded an email that spoke of the possibility of an al-Qaeda attempt to hijack US-bound flights from India,” a home ministry official said.

The official, who did not wanted to be named, said the email written by an “unknown entity” appeared to have originated from India and was received by the FBI Saturday at its headquarters in the US.

On top of this new concern is word out regarding Al Qaeda plans to topple the democratically elected government in Lebanon. This is in addition to word that Al Qaeda plans to attack Europe around the Christmas and New Year holidays. And we all know about the mobilization of Al Qaeda in Iraq – to send these kinds of signals to Pelosi and Reid. If this trend continues, the election of the Democrats will have been seen as one of the biggest political blunders in modern history. The Democrats emboldned the terrorists with their unrelenting calls to surrender Iraq. And now they have to make good on their commitments to Al Qaeda – at least that is what Al Qaeda believes. I wonder if we would be here, with this problem, if the liberal media and dems (and impatient Reps) has stood by Bush on this one issue and declared no option but success in Iraq. My guess is Al Qaeda would have given up the ghost by now. But we will never know for sure.

28 responses so far

28 Responses to “Al Qaeda Prepares To Send Signal To World & Dems”

  1. lurker9876 says:


    Is Reid backtracking on his pre-election attacks?

    Now he’s saying that ” the monitoring of some Americans’ phone calls might be a necessary part of the fight against terrorism, “We must do it within the confines of the Constitution,” he said, presumably pointing to new efforts to restrict the government’s controversial surveillance programs.”

    Will he do the research on the NSA terrorist surveillance program and will he reach the same conclusion as yours?

  2. Snapple says:

    I disagree with AJ that the Al Qaeda would have given up the ghost in Iraq if it weren’t for the media and the Democrats.

    This is a big movement that is not easily deterred and will be around for a long time. Unity will help, but the opposition is not going to “give up the ghost” even if we are more united.

    The head of the MI5 gave a talk about the threat the other day. I have the link and her main points here:

    She makes the point that the problem has been growing for a long time, and that Al Qaeda almost attacked them in 2000.

  3. kathie says:

    I don’t think Bush threw Rummy over board so he could take a new direction in Iraq. They waited until the last second because they thought they might win. Rummy left because he knew he could not win a war and spend the next 2 years with a bunch of dumb asses who would not bother to listen to one word he said, or do their home work, but wanted to make a political point. Remember the last Senate hearing with the ever so wise one Hillary Clinton. Two years of that would make a racket- ball game not worth playing. The President and Rummy came to the same conclusion. The President is really going to miss his trusted friend, but I can’t see they had a choice.

  4. the good doctor says:

    Right on Kathie. This was plan b all along. They removed Rumsfeld so that the rats have no excuses but to move along with the war. I bet they were surprised by this move . I also think the charm offense is part of the plan.

    The President has the veto power and they do not have enough votes to over ride him. So when you hear Murtha talking about the powerless president that’s all bull. If they don’t play ball the get vetoes in all their favorite bills.

  5. Carol_Herman says:

    You can blame the donks. I don’t. I blame Bush. When Fallujah happened, the AIR FORCE SHOULD HAVE FLATTENED THE PLACE! Period. But Bush is terrified of the military hurting anybody!

    So, we’ve been coasting. And, uncle sugar thought he could “buy” allegance. Are you surprised that the arabs took our money and delivered NOTHING? That’s their nature. And, that’s when we began to look weak!

    There are no neo-cons in Bush’s white house, now. Only the anti-semitic James Baker. We’ll get plenty of leaks. That’s his operation. (Just as it was when he was in Reagan’s white house, and in return for a bunch of cars, he delivered Reagan to Bitburg. Kohl, who refused to yield? He’s gone, now. Germany’s got it’s own pickles.)

    Any-hoo. For the time being, getting Gates into Rumsfeld’s DoD slot, means that Bush (and Baker), have to wait for January.

    We get the impression from the media that everything ahead is a “slam dunk.” But, ya know what? I’m not so sure.

    There’s a possibility that James Webb either gets screwed by the liberals in POWER, within his party. Or he’s put on the Intelligence Committee. And, his questions can be directed at Gates. (If you think the Reagan white house was full of fiends, it was not. Reagan, however, never involved himself in personnel matters.)

    I’m not even sure that James Baker gets what he wants.

    He tried to “convince” Olmert NOT to come to the white house tomorrow. Olmert’s coming to Los Angeles, to have a “meeting” with Pelosi. And, no matter what Bush does, now. Among the outcomes? Bush can be a lame duck. Especially, if the republicans see him operating like Nixon did. (Nixon thought he had way more powers than Congress; and it was his mistake. When Nixon was told Rodino, a democrat from New Jersey, was on board the impeachment. Nixon resigned.)

    And, James Baker cut his teeth in that environment.

    Both the elder Bush. And, Baker. Both saw political opportunities in all of the termoil. Bush the elder? Wasn’t the most popular republican in 1988. But back then? All he needed was Sunnunu. Of New Hampshire. To gain the white house. Against the lackluster, college professor, Dukakis. The democrats really don’t have a powerful team, here!

    And, this election? You see this as a “big” win for democrats? I see it, instead, as a much bigger win for “independents.” For people who really want to be in government. Who campaigned as moderates and conservatives.

    Didn’t this election just show that the GOP kiesters that got kicked out of office, were men who didn’t take “The Contract with America” seriously.

    Now? If the liberals sit on the newcomers, everyone who won, LOSES. In the long run, it pays to stick as close to your campaign promises.

    Bush’s bet? He’s encouraging the donks to be as liberal as they can be. Because he will “sign on.” Where’s the loss to the Bush family? James Baker IS K-Street, personified. IF the GOP stays in the minority, then K-Street WINS. Bush, with James Baker in charge?

    Let’s see what Tom Lantos does. Even Pelosi. She doesn’t have to cooperate with Bush? Or, to put it another way. Pelosi is speaker because the donks picked up 25 seats. (And, in the senate? ONE SEAT.)

    James Baker tried hard this summer to force Olmert to send in the IDF into syria. To remove Assad’s head. Didn’t want to do it. And, Baker’s been kicking the furniture ever since.

    What’s ahead for the arabs? Where are they “benefiting?” Lebanon is in better shape, today?

    Iraq is ready to “go it alone?”

    By the way, if we get another 9/11, you think Bush can come out and parade around that the RoP isn’t responsible?

    Well, the saudis fund the terrorists. One reason they haven’t funded “more” has something to do with the gains they think they”ll get supping at the Bush family table.

    Only thing is, Bush’s popularity just tanked. And, if he’s not worried about people who’d vote for the GOP candidates; but are unhappy with his LACK of direction; except into the saudi tent …

    Why would Congress critters “go along” with this game? Leadership can be clownish. If behind the scenes the people who think they deserve to have the clout because of seniority … can be the people who ruin the stuff the newcomers want to have in their favor. ONLY WHEN the newcomers to congress remain MUM.

    In the 1960’s, when I was young, the KIDS took over from the “seniority” group. And, kicked ass. What makes you think kids today wouldn’t fight for their own futures? Just asking.

  6. Cobalt Shiva says:

    “Didn’t this election just show that the GOP kiesters that got kicked out of office, were men who didn’t take “The Contract with America” seriously.”

    No, it didn’t. The real conservatives took it on the chin, if you’d bother to read their ACU ratings.

    America just voted to throw its warriors under the train. Carol, dear, better grab a rifle and a K-pot, because those warriors are going to leave at the end of their service, and they ain’t coming back. You want to fight the terrorists? Do it yourself, the hired help knows the American voter’s not worth the bones of a Nebraskan grenadier.

  7. Ken says:

    Strata says if Dems had stood behind Bush on Iraq al Qaeda would
    have “given up the ghost” there. Military experts worldwide say Bush BROUGHT al Qaeda to Iraq with his botched decision to invade. CIA reports, leaked and otherwise, say al Qaeda INCREASES its membership as a result of the US staying in Iraq.

    The Republicans would still be in control if Strata was a wise

    If Strata/Bush/neocon policies are not reined in, the blood of
    US servicemen will continue to flow with nothing gained.

  8. Ken says:

    For Enforcement you sound positively ” French” in your retreatist defeatism…”the fence will never be built.” And since you don’t believe anyone coming into America should be guilty of a crime
    provided they are doing so to get a better standard of living, would you give me the keys to your house if I pass a lie detector test assuring I only wish the entry to obtain a better standard of living?