Jan 05 2007

Democrats Complete First Item On Their Contract With Al Qaeda – Surrender Iraq

Published by at 2:19 pm under 2006 Elections,All General Discussions,Iraq

Well, there go those crazy democrats again! Newly in control they have overstepped the election results and are back on their “surrender to Al Qaeda at any cost” idiocy. They even pretend to want to succeed as they call for clear failure:

“We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution.”

“Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain.”

“Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months,…

Music to the ears of Bin Laden and Zawahiri, I am sure. The Somali’s and Ethiopians were able to chase Al Qaeda out of Somalia in a few short weeks, but the Dems are so ready to give up they think leaving millions of Iraqis to die at the hand of terrorists is honorable! The American people are going to have a bad case of buyer’s remorse now.

Many derided me when I listed the Democrat’s Contract With Al Qaeda last year. But a quick review shows the Dems are doing exactly what Al Qaeda needs to survive and fight againL:

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’.

NINE, 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.

Note Item 7 – which they have dutifully performed. I posted this on February 6th and plan to measure the Democrat performance against it. I expect them to score a perfect 100 before summer.

Addendum: First off, I do know most of these are actuall in the works right now. I just want to declare them accomplished when the Democrat Leaders actually come out and make good. And I really do not care whether the Dems intend to help Al Qaeda or not, it is the result of their actions that matter. Many dreadful mistakes have been made at the altar of good intentions.

42 responses so far

42 Responses to “Democrats Complete First Item On Their Contract With Al Qaeda – Surrender Iraq”

  1. For Enforcement says:

    I didn’t intend to give the impression that I’m for hurting anyone crossing the border, but I am for stopping them and keeping them out. However, if armed gangs are going to come across the border and attack the US military, then I am for declaring war on the invading country.

    Yep spook, that kinda ‘virtual fence’ would work.

  2. For Enforcement says:

    Cochino, I’m not sure you understand the Vietnam war very well, if you think it is similar to Iraq. However, what I think you mean is, the Dems and Libs are going off the deep end, similar to what they did during the Vietnam war. Now that I can go along with. Comparion of two wars: no resemblence.

  3. Barbara says:

    I just saw on Fox that Barbara Boxer had previously endorsed the California chapter of CAIR for its good works. But then she found out that…..gasp…..CAIR has been linked to terrorist organizations and some of their officers are now in jail for aiding Hezbollah and Hamas. She has now rescinded the endorsement and says if she had known they were linked to terrorism she would not have endorsed them and that her staff needs to do better research. She is sorry if anybody was hurt by her actions.

    I thought she was in Washington not planet Pluto.

  4. For Enforcement says:

    Unfortunately too many Dems decisions are made on intelligence. Excuse me, I mean the “lack of intelligence” and I’m not talking about the ‘spying’ type of intel. I’m talking about what is in their heads.

    Wonder when you made the endorsement? I think CAIR has been linked for quite some time, but I don’t recall when. Wonder if she cited what some of CAIR’s good works were?

  5. Barbara says:

    For Enforcement

    That was my point. This item is on Foxnews.com right now in the lesser news below the headlines. Where has she been that she didn’t know about CAIR? Maybe willful ignorance?

  6. Don Surber says:

    Quick hits…

    AJ Strata said: “Democrats Complete First Item On Their Contract With Al Qaeda – Surrender Iraq.”


  7. Barbara says:

    I was wrong. It was on Brit Hume and the certificate was awarded in November.

  8. Don Surber says:

    Contract with al-Qaeda?…

    AJ Strata said: “Democrats Complete First Item On Their Contract With Al Qaeda – Surrender Iraq.”


  9. cochino says:

    Virtually all of the particulars between the conflicts in Iraq and Vietnam are different. Many are very different. However, in some of the most important aspects of all, they are becoming more and more similar. The entire effort has been de-legitimized in the popular imagination. The view that it was a mistake to go in in the first place (regardless of what to do now) has virtually become accepted by the average person. The popular media are deadset against it. They will spin everything (I mean, everything) in a negative way. In Vietnam, North Vietnamese losses turned into victories in newspapers in the States. The same things is happening in Iraq.

  10. cochino says:

    In the United States, the Vietnam War was presented as a war between the U.S. and local people half way around the world who just wanted to do things their own way in their own country. Of course, we know now that it wasn’t that at all. The North Vietnamese seemed invincible. The supposedly mighty United States could not subdue them. And the U.S. count kept going up and upt and upt (as if it could somehow go down)! As was fairly apparent at the time to many, but has now become well known, we were really fighting the Soviet Union and, to a lesser extent (by the end at least), China. A few provinces in South Vietnam were just the field of battle.

    I submit that this situation is eerily similar to what is going on now in Iraq.

  11. cochino says:

    The media report on Iraq like it’s some kind of popular uprising against the U.S. and its allies. It’s not that. And the U.S. government talks about fighting insurgents and terrorists. The Bush Administration knows we’re fighting forces much larger than the efforts of fighters in a few provinces in Iraq. It does not openly discuss this because it fears being dragged into a broader war with Iran and Syria.

    I may be rare, but I think things are going about as well as can be expected. If we end up with a stable democratic government in Iraq, it will constitute one of the greatest achievements in history of warfare. It will almost certainly be the most humane war ever fought, with an end result among the most noble ever achieved. Look at the big picture. Look at the “atrocities” the U.S. has committed: Some guys stacked up nude at Abu Ghraib? Two dozen killed by some psychos in Haditha? Some Korans desecrated at Guantanamo Bay? A few dozen men made to “think” they were going to drown for a few moments in “secret prisons”? The comparison with wars conducted throughout history (right up to the present day, really) is too ridiculous even to be a joke.

    That said, I think it’s becoming clear that the Iraq conflict, at least in terms of major U.S. invovement, has to be brought to conclusion in the near future. Support among the U.S. public is ebbing. That’s just the way it is.

  12. For Enforcement says:

    Well, you make a better case for the civilian, at home situation being similar more so than the battlefield.
    In vietnam, the US and the South were fighting the uniformed north vietnamese (with Russia’s support) in Iraq, we’re fighting terrorists of many types, none in uniform. Seems very different to me.

    anyhow after we won in Vietnam, forcing the North to sign the peace agreement and withdrew our troops, the north resumed the fight and the Dems threw in the towel(ran up the white flag), resulting in a loss by the South Vietnamese. The only positive from the Vietnam war was that the Soviet Union spent themselves into oblivion and no longer exist.
    Now that most of Iraq is living peacefully and the ex dictator is pushing up daisies, the Dems are urgently seeking a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of ultimate victory. The only way we lose is if we let the Dems get their white flags shipped over there. (they’ve already bought and packaged them, just waiting for a shipment date)

  13. For Enforcement says:

    AJ said:
    it is the result of their actions that matter. Many dreadful mistakes have been made at the altar of good intentions.

    Reminds me of one of my departed mother’s favorite sayings:
    “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”

    There’s no way to say it better, the dems may have good intentions, but it’s not going to serve anyone well.

  14. roonent1 says:


    Thank you for kicking Ken to the curb and calling out the other unruly posters that come here to harass your loyal faithful. Thank you. You have many gracious and informed posters whom care about furthering your topics and informing all of us on the facts and not propaganda.

    I for one really appreciate the 2007 AJ that is working hard to keep the posts free of these disruptive types. Once again, many thanks.

    To the regular loyal posters here, thank you too for keeping me enlightened and up to date on the facts of AJ’s posts. AJ, Mac at Macsmind and Curt of Flopping Aces are the three best blogs on the net by far. You three rock and I wish you all much sucess.

  15. Retired Spook says:

    There’s no way to say it better, the dems may have good intentions, but it’s not going to serve anyone well.

    FE, unfortunately the Dems’ idea of good intentions and your and my idea of good intentions are two completely different animals. It’s gonna be an interesting next two years.

    Roonent, New Year’s house cleaning must be contageous. Another blog I frequent is going through the same process right now. I think The Anchoress, in her opening header says it best:

    I ask only that you be civil, because I do believe that decent people can disagree and still be decent people.

  16. Barbara says:

    There’s no way to say it better, the dems may have good intentions, but it’s not going to serve anyone well.

    I don’t think the dems have good intentions. I think BDS is so bad among these people that they don’t want Bush to take any credit for solving the ME controversary. They do not want him to go down in history as the president who accomplished this great goal and brought peace to the world.

    They are willfully ignoring the whole terrorism problem and saying it is about strawmen who are not there. They say there is no way to bring peace to this region. Their whole mindset is if Bubba couldn’t do it, then Bush surely cannot. And if be some fluke he was successful they want to spin it to be a loss not a win.

    This is why the dems and especially the media are spinning the news the way they are. The hatred is so rampant it blinds them to anything else. We have seen in the news any accomplishments that Bush has done are downplayed or not played at all but most of them derided as nothing much.

  17. For Enforcement says:

    Quoting myself here: There’s no way to say it better, the dems may have good intentions, but it’s not going to serve anyone well.

    Please don’t take it that I think Dems have good intentions. I was thinking along the lines that “they think they have good intentions” but the fact that no good would come of them would be proof that they weren’t. No one thinks, more than I do, that the Dems only have bad intentions.

    Yes Barbara, I think they are terminally infected with BDS.

    Reading all the news lately about Jamel Hassein and AP, maybe some truths will start to be printed about the real situation and then everyone, except the Dems, would realize it’s not hopeless and would actually start to be for the USA to win.

    Please don’t attribute any good characteristics to Dems because of me. They have none.

  18. Carol J says:

    They’re going over the edge…DRUNK with power!

    Drudge is reporting (via Bloomberg):

    Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said Democrats are considering options to limit the U.S. involvement, including setting a cap on U.S. troop levels and requiring Bush to obtain congressional approval to exceed it.

    The letter from Pelosi and Reid comes as Bush prepares to lay out a plan next week for new U.S. steps in Iraq and signals Democrats’ efforts to thwart any troop increase or exact a political price if Bush orders one.

    “There will be the eyes of the American people on everything the president does in Iraq, for a change,’’ Reid told reporters today. “The people of this country no longer support this war in Iraq.’’


    Are Durbin and Reid kidding? Doubt it…but, they only have a one vote majority. Still it breathtaking to see them try this.


  19. Barbara says:

    Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said Democrats are considering options to limit the U.S. involvement, including setting a cap on U.S. troop levels and requiring Bush to obtain congressional approval to exceed it.

    Congress is now trying to take over the executive branch? They seem to be drunk with power or drunk with something. Since when did congress have anything to say about the military. All they can do is cut off the funding and I don’t think they have enough votes for that. They have nothing to say about troop levels and Bush does not have to have congressional approval for that. This is all red meat thrown to their base. Oh, they would like for us to fail in Iraq, goodness knows they have worked hard enough for it. And never forget the dems meeting with the terrorists and the senators going to Syria. Of course, Rickerfeller would be right at home with this treasonous activity. After all didn’t Zawiri send them instructions on how to do so.

  20. For Enforcement says:

    You’re right Barb, the funding has already been approved for the next year and if it is to be cut, it has to be passed like any other law and the Repubs aren’t about to vote to cut. Even if they did, Bush could veto it.

    You’re right, they would like to run the Executive Branch but they don’ t have the authority.

    BDS is alive and thriving.