?

Log in

No account? Create an account
News Clips... Our Foes Happy With Democrats - hunterkirk
November 11th, 2006
09:03 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
News Clips... Our Foes Happy With Democrats
1) Arabs relish U.S. Republican election losses... Middle East
2) Democrats good for immigration changes - Mexico... Mexico
3) Many Socialist Nations happy with the expected weakened USA... Europe
4) The Road Not Taken: Forfeiting a Majority, How McCain Destroyed the Republican Party... USA
5) Wal-Mart wishes you a Merry Christmas... USA
6) Trust the Troops, Sorry we didn't... USA
7) GOP loss spurs call for '94 principals... USA
8) Al Qaeda gloats ove Democrat win, there hardest foe has been replaced by the weakest... Terrorism
9) Democrat win is a Victory for Iran... Iran


1) Arabs relish U.S. Republican election losses... Middle East
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L0814031&WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-3

CAIRO, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Arabs relished on Wednesday the beating the U.S. Republican party took in mid-term elections, saying President George W. Bush had been given a well-deserved slap for heavy handed Middle East tactics. But few believed the elections that handed Democrats at least partial control of Congress would exact any real policy shift on the issues they care about most -- from the U.S. role in Iraq to the Iranian nuclear row, Israel and Sudan.

"There will be a feeling that justice has been done partly, although not completely," said Mustafa al-Sayyid, a political scientist at Cairo University. "People are realistic. A victory in Congress doesn't mean the administration will be forced to change its foreign policy. Moreover President Bush is known to be quite rigid. His approach is ideological and it is difficult to expect he will change." U.S. voters handed a huge victory to Democrats, who gained about 30 seats in the House of Representatives on a wave of discontent with the Iraq war, corruption and Bush's leadership. Democratic control of the House could slam the brakes on much of Bush's agenda and increase pressure for a change of course in Iraq. Democrats also moved to the brink of capturing the Senate, pending late results. From Sudan to Egypt to Iraq -- countries where many Arabs see U.S. policy in the region as domineering and imbalanced -- that prospect was seen as worthy of celebration.

"It's something every Egyptian should see as excellent. We hope there'll be no more attacks on Muslim countries," said Samer Kamel, a watch salesman in the Egyptian capital. Many Arabs would like a more hands-off U.S. policy in the region. They nearly universally oppose the U.S. military presence in Iraq and see the Bush administration as siding with Israel in its decades-old conflict with the Palestinians.

ARABS PREFER LIGHTER TOUCH
Arabs also tend to oppose U.S.-led efforts to curb Iran's nuclear programme, not necessarily out of strong support for Tehran's ambitions but because Washington is silent on Israel's nuclear programme. Some Arabs also see the U.S. as being too forceful over demands for international troops for Sudan's war-ravaged Darfur region, where Bush has said genocide was taking place, a charge Khartoum denies. Arabs would prefer a lighter touch.

"We are hoping for relations of cooperation and not confrontation," said al-Samani al-Wasiyla, Sudanese Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. Algerian analyst Ismail Maaraf Ghalia said: "The Democrats will also make U.S. proposals for reforms in the Arab World more credible because their idea is based on partnership not on pressure and interference in internal affairs." Few Arabs saw evidence that U.S. Democrats would force a total about-face on policy, especially on Iraq, but hoped they would help push the administration to be more diplomatic.

"Their strategy would not be so different from the current Republicans' strategy, but policy decisions wouldn't be as aggressive, arrogant or ill-advised as happened in the past few years," Kuwaiti political analyst Khaldoun al-Naqeeb said. Abdel Monem Said of Egypt's Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies said that while Democrats may restrain the Bush administration a little in Iraq, a divided government could also see Washington deferring engagement on other fronts like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, creating a void. "A void in the world power system usually is not good," he said. "A lot of evil-doers will try to fill the vacuum." (Additional reporting by Aziz El Kaissouni in Cairo, Haitham Haddadin in Kuwait, Opheera McDoom in Khartoum and Hamid Ould Ahmed in Algiers)

Me: The Muslims voted for the Democrat not because they like their progressive view but because they know the Democrats are spineless talkers and this will give the Muslims far more power in the world then they had before.

2) Democrats good for immigration changes - Mexico... Mexico
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3855415a12,00.html

MEXICO CITY: Gains by Democrats in the US congressional elections may help promote more liberal immigration policies sought by Mexico, President Vicente Fox's spokesman has said. Mexico has been deeply disappointed by President George W Bush's failure to convince his own House of Representatives Republicans to accept a guest worker programme that would allow millions of mostly Mexicans to work temporarily in the United States. Instead, Republicans who controlled both the House and the Senate voted for a 1126km fence along part of the US-Mexican border to stem the huge flow of illegal immigrants. That angered Mexico, which has more faith in the Democrats on immigration. In midterm elections on Tuesday, Democrats won control of the House and were near taking control of the Senate as vote counts continued in an outstanding race.

"We hope this new make-up of the US Congress can be a catalyst for the US government working toward a migration reform with the characteristics proposed by Mexico," Fox's spokesman Ruben Aguilar said. Mexican President-elect Felipe Calderon, who takes office on Dec. 1, meets Bush in Washington on Thursday and is expected to raise complaints about the fence, which the US president signed into law last month. The fencing will run along parts of four southwestern states – California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Mexico and other US allies in Latin America feel Washington neglected them after the September 11, 2001, attacks that they said diverted US attention from the region toward the Middle East. Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez said he hoped the midterm elections would force the United States to concentrate more on its southern neighbours.

"I hope this also obliges the refocus toward our region, toward our nation," Derbez said.

Me: I told you if you wanted to stop illegal Immigration you can not trust the Democrats... oh they will solve illegal immigrant, simple just stop making it illegal and blow open the border the everyone and any one.

3) Many Socialist Nations happy with the expected weakened USA... Europe
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228219,00.html

MADRID, Spain — The shift that midterm elections brought to Washington's political landscape was welcomed Wednesday by many across the world who oppose the war in Iraq and methods used by the U.S. in the fight against terrorism. From Pakistan to Paris, politicians, analysts and ordinary citizens expressed hope that the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives and strong showing in Senate and gubernatorial races would force President Bush to adopt a more conciliatory approach to global issues. But some also expressed fears that a lame-duck president under a split Congress might weaken much-needed American influence and stall global trade talks. On Iraq, some feared that Democrats will force a too-rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces, leaving that country and the region in chaos. Others said they doubted the turnover in congressional power would have a significant impact on Iraq policy any time soon, largely because the Democrats did not possess a clear course they want to take.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, said American policy would not dramatically change, despite the Democratic election success. "The president is the architect of U.S. foreign policy," the ambassador said in a videotape distributed by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. "He is the commander in chief of our armed forces. He understands what is at stake in Iraq." U.S. foreign policy aside, the fact that Bush was handed a political black eye was also in focus.

"Of course, the citizens of the United States are humans with a conscience. It's a reprisal vote against the war in Iraq, against the corruption" within the Bush administration, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said. "All this fills us with optimism." In an extraordinary joint statement, more than 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as "the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world" and gloated that they left the Bush administration "seriously weakened."

In Paris, expatriates and French citizens alike packed the city's main American haunts to watch results, with some standing to cheer or boo as vote tabulations came in. One Frenchman, teacher Jean-Pierre Charpemtrat, 53, said it was about time U.S. voters figured out what much of the rest of the world already knew. "Americans are realizing that you can't found the politics of a country on patriotic passion and reflexes," he said. "You can't fool everybody all the time — and I think that's what Bush and his administration are learning today."

Democrats swept to power in the House and were threatening to take control of the Senate amid exit polls that showed widespread American discontent over Iraq, nationwide disgust at corruption in politics, and low approval ratings for Bush. Bush is deeply unpopular in many countries around the globe, with particularly intense opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the U.S. terror detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and allegations of Washington sanctioned interrogation methods that some equate with torture. People across the Mideast also reacted swiftly, saying it appeared the U.S. president had paid the price for what many view as failed policy in Iraq. Most governments across the region had no official comment, but some citizens voiced hope for change. "We hope American foreign policy will change and that living conditions in Iraq will improve," said 48-year-old engineer Suheil Jabar, a Shiite Muslim in Baghdad.

In Copenhagen, Denmark, 35-year-old Jens Langfeldt said he did not know much about the midterm elections but was opposed to some of Bush's policies. He referred to the president as "that cowboy." In Sri Lanka, some said they hoped the rebuke would force Bush to abandon a unilateral approach to global issues. The Democratic win means "there will be more control and restraint" over U.S. foreign policy. said Jehan Perera, a political analyst. Passions were even higher in Pakistan, where Bush is deeply unpopular despite billions in aid and support for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. One opposition lawmaker, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, said he welcomed the election result but hoped for more. Bush "deserves to be removed," he said. But while the result produced jubilation, there were also deep concerns.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told broadcaster TV2 he hoped that the president and the new Congress would find "common ground on questions about Iraq and Afghanistan." "The world needs a vigorous U.S.A.," Fogh Rasmussen said. Some also worried that Democrats, who have a reputation for being more protective of U.S. jobs going overseas, will make it harder to achieve a global free trade accord. The accord, said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, "is very important for the future of trans-Atlantic relations."

And in China, some feared the resurgence of the Democrats would increase tension over human rights and trade and labor issues. China's surging economy has a massive trade surplus with the United States. "The Democratic Party ... will protect the interests of small and medium American enterprises and labor and that could produce an impact on China-U.S. trade relations," Zhang Guoqing of the state-run Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said in a report on Sina.com, a popular Chinese Internet portal. The prospect of a sudden change in American foreign policy could be troubling to U.S. allies such as Britain, Japan and Australia, which have thrown their support behind the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Democrats campaigned on a platform that demanded a change of direction in Iraq, and the war has lost the support of the majority of American voters.

"The problem for Arabs now is, an American withdrawal (from Iraq) could be a security disaster for the entire region," said Mustafa Alani, an Iraqi analyst for the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.

Me: The Iraqi is right to be fearful. As for the rest I find it amazing the people who Democrats inspire and none of them care one bit about having a strong USA. Those who think the Democrats will insist on a strong USA are ignoring what the Democrats have been saying for years now. For them it is all about global acceptance, subplanting our will to the will of foreign bodies. I also find it amazing how the type of people so happy that they are in power now dont bother the Democrats... they like it when terror groups, socialist, and communist endorse them. As for China that is a joke and a half they have nothing to fear from the Democrats who by making doing work in the USA vastly so expensive that they will drive work from her to China. They are going to get big bucks from the Democrats as they learned when Clinton was in charge.

4) The Road Not Taken: Forfeiting a Majority, How McCain Destroyed the Republican Party... USA
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/08/the_road_not_taken__forfeiting_a_majority

The post-mortems are accumulating, but I think the obvious has to be stated: John McCain and his colleagues in the Gang of 14 cost the GOP its Senate majority while the conduct of a handful of corrupt House members gave that body's leadership the Democrats. The first two paragraphs of my book Painting the Map Red --published in March of this year, read:

If you are a conservative Republican, as I am, you have a right to be worried. An overconfident and complacent Republican Party could be facing electoral disaster. Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and a host of others could be looming in our future and undoing all the good we've tried to do.

It is break the glass and pull the alarm time for the Republican Party. The elections looming in November 2006 are shaping up to be disastrous for the GOP as the elections of 1994 were for the Democrats. Most GOP insiders seem unaware of the party's political peril. Some are resigned to a major defeat as the price we have to pay for a decade of consistent gains, which, they think, couldn't have gone on forever. As cooler heads sort through the returns, they will see not a Democratic wave but a long series of bitter fights most of which were lost by very thin margins, the sort of margin that could have been overcome had there been greater purpose and energy arrayed on the GOP's side. The country did not fundamentally change from 2004, but the Republicans had to defend very difficult terrain in very adverse circumstances. Step by step over the past two years the GOP painted themselves into a corner from which there was no escape. Congressional leadership time and time again took the easy way out and declared truces with Democrats over issues, which ought not to have been compromised. The easy way led to Tuesday's result. The criminal activities of Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney and Mark Foley were anchors around every Republican neck, and the damaged leadership could not figure out that the only way to slip that weight was by staying in town and working around the clock on issue after issue. The long recesses and the unwillingness to confront the issues head on --remember the House's inexplicable refusal to condemn the New York Times by name in a resolution over the SWIFT program leak?-- conveyed a smugness about the majority which was rooted in redistricting's false assurance of invulnerability. Only on rare occasions would the Republicans set up the sort of debate that sharpened the contrast between the parties. In wartime, the public expects much more from its leaders than they received from the GOP.

In the Senate three turning points stand out. On April 15, 2005 --less than three months after President Bush had begun a second term won in part because of his pledge to fight for sound judges-- Senator McCain appeared on Hardball and announced he would not support the "constitutional option" to end Democratic filibusters. Then, stunned by the furious reaction, the senator from Arizona cobbled together the Gang of 14 "compromise" that in fact destroyed the ability of the Republican Party to campaign on Democratic obstructionism while throwing many fine nominees under the bus. Now in the ruins of Tuesday there is an almost certain end to the slow but steady restoration of originalism to the bench. Had McCain not abandoned his party and then sabotaged its plans, there would have been an important debate and a crucial decision taken on how the Constitution operates. The result was the complete opposite. Yes, President Bush got his two nominees to SCOTUS through a 55-45 Senate, but the door is now closed, and the court still tilted left. A once-in-a-generation opportunity was lost. A few months later there came a debate in the Senate over the Democrats' demand for a timetable for withdrawal for Iraq led to another half-measure: A Frist-Warner alternative that demanded quarterly reports on the war's progress, a move widely and correctly interpreted as a blow to the Administration’s Iraq policy. Fourteen Republicans voted against the Frist-Warner proposal --including Senator McCain-- and the press immediately understood that the half-measure was an early indicator of erosion in support for a policy of victory. Then came the two leaks of national security secrets to the New York Times, and an utterly feckless response from both the Senate and the House. Not one hearing was held; not one subpoena delivered. A resolution condemning these deeply injurious actions passed the House but dared not name the New York Times. The Senate did not even vote on a non-binding resolution.

Nor did the Senate get around to confirming the president's authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of al Qaeda contacting its operatives in the United States. Weeks were taken up jamming the incoherent McCain-Kennedy immigration bill through the Judiciary Committee only to see it repudiated by the majority of Republicans, and the opportunity lost for a comprehensive bill that would have met the demand for security within a rational regularization of the illegal population already here. And while the Senate twiddled away its days, crucial nominees to the federal appellate bench languished in the Judiciary Committee. The most important of them --Peter Keisler who remains nominated for the D.C. Circuit-- didn't even receive a vote because of indifference on the part of Chairman Specter.

(The National Review's Byron York wondered why the president didn't bring up the judges issue in the campaign until the last week, and then only in Montana. The reason was obvious: Senators DeWine and Chafee were struggling and any focus on the legacy of the Gang of 14 would doom DeWine's already dwindling chances while reminding the country of the retreat from principal in early '05.)

As summer became fall, the Administration and Senator Frist began a belated attempt to salvage the term. At exactly that moment Senators McCain and Graham threw down their still murky objections to the Administration’s proposals on the trial and treatment of terrorists. Precious days were lost as was momentum and clarity, the NSA program left unconfirmed (though still quite constitutional) and Keisler et al hung out to dry. Throughout this two years the National Republican Senatorial Committee attempted to persuade an unpersuadable base that Lincoln Chafee was a Republican. For years Chafee has frustrated measure after measure, most recently the confirmation of John Bolton, even after Ahmadinejad threatened and Chavez insulted the United States from the UN stage. Chafee was a one-man wrecking crew on the NRSC finances, a drain of resources and energy, and a billboard for the idea that the Senate is first a club and only secondarily a body of legislators.
It is hard to conceive of how the past two years could have been managed worse on the Hill. The presidential ambitions of three senators ended Tuesday night, though two of them will not face up to it. The Republican Party sent them and their 52 colleagues to Washington D.C. to implement an agenda which could have been accomplished but that opportunity was frittered away. The Republican Party raised the money and staffed the campaigns that had yielded a 55-45 seat majority, and the Republican Party expected the 55 to act like a majority. Confronted with obstruction, the Republicans first fretted and then caved on issue after issue. Had the 55 at least been seen to be trying --hard, and not in a senatorial kind of way-- Tuesday would have had a much different result. Independents, especially, might have seen why the majority mattered. Will the GOP get back to a working majority again? Perhaps. And perhaps sooner than you think. The Democrats have at least six vulnerable senators running in 2008, while the situation looks pretty good for the GOP. But the majority is not going to return unless the new minority leadership --however it is composed-- resolves to persuade the public, and to be firm in its convictions, not concerned for the praise of the Beltway-Manhattan media machine.

Me: I am so hopeing McCain is destoryed along with his supporters. The bastard was a clear traitor to his party and when he comes before the party to get their nomination I hope the kick him out of the Republican party so he can play those destructive games in the Democrat party.

5) Wal-Mart wishes you a Merry Christmas... USA
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-11-08-christmas-usat_x.htm?csp=15

Wal-Mart will put "Christmas" back into the holidays this year, the retailer plans to announce Thursday.
A year after religious and other groups boycotted retailers, including Wal-Mart (WMT), for downplaying Christmas, the world's largest retail chain will have an in-your-face Christmas theme this year.

"We, quite frankly, have learned a lesson from last year," says Wal-Mart spokeswoman Linda Blakley. "We're not afraid to use the term 'Merry Christmas.' We'll use it early, and we'll use it often." Wal-Mart told about 7,000 associates of the plans at a conference last month and "was met with rapturous applause. ... We know many of our customers will feel the same," says John Fleming, Wal-Mart's executive vice president of marketing. Fleming says the retailer, which recently lowered prices on toys and electronics, will be pitching Christmas almost as much as "value" to holiday shoppers.

New this year:
• A TV ad trumpeting Christmas will air for the first time next week. Wal-Mart also will air TV ads along with the Salvation Army mentioning Christmas.
• The name of the department with Christmas decorating needs will change from The Holiday Shop, which it was for the past several years, to The Christmas Shop.
• Store signs will count down the days until Christmas, and Christmas carols will be piped throughout the season.
• About 60% more merchandise will be labeled "Christmas" rather than "holiday" this year over last.

The Christmas spirit is spreading. Macy's, the largest U.S. department store chain, plans to have "Merry Christmas" signs in all departments. All of Macy's window displays will have Christmas themes. At New York's Herald Square, the theme will be "Oh, Christmas Tree."

"Our intention is to make every customer feel welcomed and appreciated, whether they celebrate Christmas or other holidays," spokesman Jim Sluzewski says. As at Wal-Mart, Macy's employees are encouraged to consider wishing customers holiday greetings that are appropriate to their race or religion, including Happy Kwanzaa or Feliz Navidad. Sometimes, even the best intentions can backfire. The Catholic League, one of the groups fighting what it calls the Christmas Wars, says a member alerted it that Macy's was pitching a "Happy Hanukkah" gift card but not a "Merry Christmas" one. After he was contacted by the group, Sluzewski determined a production "glitch" meant the Merry Christmas gift cards were available everywhere but in its Western region, where there were plenty of Happy Hanukkah gift cards. "We are correcting the problem," Sluzewski says. "Of all the cards to have a glitch with."

Me: Good news...

6) Trust the Troops, Sorry we didn't... USA
http://www.therant.us/guest/l_thompson/11042006.htm

Since the toppling of Saddam’s statue, critics of the Iraq War have been trying to draw comparisons between the present conflict and Vietnam. The Left’s frame of reference is the Vietnam era–the war was bad, the president was corrupt, sex was inconsequential and Europe was a place kids went before college instead of where Muslims went before jihad. But a recent poll indicates that most Americans have left the Left and the 70's behind.
As reported in the 30 October issue of US News & World Report, the annual poll on leadership conducted for that magazine and Harvard University asked, "How much confidence do you have in the leadership" of various institutions. The responses were truly astounding and immensely encouraging. The New York Times ran thirty-two consecutive front-page stories on the Abu Ghraib military prison. None were complimentary. Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts said of Abu Ghraib, "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."

Amnesty International called the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay the "gulag of our time." On "Face the Nation," John Kerry said of our troops in Iraq, "There is no reason...that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." The British medical journal Lancet published a report claiming 655,000 Iraqis have died since the American invasion. In spite of all these self-righteous accusations, castigations and aspersions, the institution’s leaders who inspire the greatest confidence in Americans are those of the United States armed forces. Inspiring less confidence than military leaders, in descending order, are members of the medical profession, nonprofit and charity leaders, educators, religious leaders, local and state government, business leaders, Congress, the executive branch and, lowest on the list, the press. During Vietnam, frustration and anger over the war manifested itself in violent protests against institutions at home and soldiers returning from the front. There were no "Support the Troops" bumper stickers and magnetized bows. A soldier stepping off the plane in uniform could expect anything from cold glares to verbal abuse. He could expect to see the flag he fought for desecrated. He could expect to be spit upon by the citizens of the country he risked his life to defend. The military was the butt of jokes, the scapegoat for failed policy, unappreciated and disdained. Like Vietnam, the Iraq war is unpopular. Daily casualties are brought to us 24/7, with an immediacy that was never dreamed of during Vietnam. Our enemies and detractors have their own media outlets, and many are given air time on this country’s major networks or interviews in national publications. No American war has been covered more extensively and critically than this one.

Yet the American people are smart enough that they do not blame the military. No other institution inspires greater confidence and trust. The policy may not be popular, the cost may be increasingly painful, but Americans still believe in the men and women who defend us. We believe in them more than those who educate our children, treat our illnesses, run our government, or guide us in our faiths. And we believe in them much more than those ceaseless voices of criticism and fault-finding in the media who once were the conscience of our nation. The military, as it has since this country’s inception, has proved its character in the blazing crucible of war. By placing their trust and confidence in military leaders, the American people have shown they’ve matured since Vietnam. At least, some of us have.

Me: The Democrats support the trouble by thinking they are war criminals, they cause the terrorist to comit terror, and lastly that they can not win any wars... this is how the Democrats support the military.

7) GOP loss spurs call for '94 principals... USA
http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20061109-103200-8396r.htm

Some congressional Republicans, stunned by big mid-term losses, are calling for a return to GOP principles that propelled them to power in 1994. Self-critics say straying from ideals of limited government and fiscal restraint made the major difference on Election Day -- not scandals, war, the economy or the president, the Christian Science Monitor said. Meanwhile, the power struggle to lead the new Republican minority is under way. Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., announced he would not seek the minority leader's post in the next Congress.

"We did not just lose our majority, we lost our way," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind, a top contender for House minority leader, said in a statement. "While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the greatest scandal in Washington, D.C., is runaway federal spending," he said. Libertarian critics say the key to the future is a return to the ideological roots in the Goldwater and Reagan eras.

Me: The Democrats will make the next two years all about destory any success we have gained and destroying the Republican base. We can spend the next two year cleaning house undermining persons like McCain andothe Rhinos that kept us from forwarding the Conservative adgenda.

8) Al Qaeda gloats ove Democrat win, there hardest foe has been replaced by the weakest... Terrorism
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-11-10T172059Z_01_IBO132069_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A purported audio recording by the leader of Iraq's al Qaeda wing gloated over the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as a top U.S. general said the military was preparing to recommend strategy changes. Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, said in the recording posted on the Internet on Friday that the group had 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight U.S. troops in Iraq.

"I tell the lame duck (U.S. administration) do not rush to escape as did your defense minister...stay on the battle ground," he said. He said his group would not rest until it had blown up the presidential mansion in Washington. "I swear by God we shall not rest from jihad until we...blow up the filthiest house known as the White House," the voice on the recording said.

Stung by a "thumping" defeat in Tuesday's congressional elections, President George W. Bush said Rumsfeld had resigned because there was a need for "fresh perspective" in Iraq. Bush said he was open to any idea for a new approach and publicly reaffirmed a belief that "victory" was possible. The Pentagon's top general said on Friday U.S. military leaders were preparing to recommend changes in Iraq strategy but Rumsfeld's departure would not have a direct effect.

"We have to give ourselves a good honest scrub about what is working and what is not working, what are the impediments to progress and what should we change about the way we are doing it to make sure that we get to the objective that we set for ourselves," General Peter Pace, chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on the "Early Show" on CBS television "The change in leadership itself will not have a direct impact on what we do or don't do in Iraq," Pace said. "We continuously review what's going right, what's going wrong, what needs to change." Rumsfeld will be replaced by former CIA director Robert Gates, a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group assessing alternative strategies for Iraq....

Me: The rest of the article is a Partizen attack against Bush and basically endorses the terrorist... I will not put such shit on my News Clips... The above is the money lines.

9) Democrat win is a Victory for Iran... Iran
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10266591.htm

TEHRAN, Nov 10 (Reuters) - Iran's most powerful leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in the congressional elections an "obvious victory" for the Iranian nation.

"This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world," Khamenei said in remarks reported by Iran's student news agency ISNA on Friday. "Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation." The Democrats wrested control of both houses of Congress from the Republicans in this week's mid-term elections, partly because of voter concern over the war in Iraq. Khamenei condemned Israel for its artillery attack on Wednesday on the Gazan town of Beit Hanoun which killed 18 civilians, and also the "silence" of Western nations over "this great oppression".

"The Zionist regime which ended its 50 years of military glory in Lebanon is taking revenge for its defeat on the Palestinian people," Khamenei said. "The daily crimes by the savage Zionists in Gaza once more prove that holding talks with this occupying regime is of no use." Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas claimed victory in their war against Israel in July and August. Hezbollah is popular with Lebanon's large Shi'ite Muslim community and is supported by Syria and Iran.

Me: I keep being told by liberals and democrats they want to protect Israel but clearly the foes of Israel see the Democrats gain of power as a path to the destruction of Israel... Oh well I guess they will not believe it untill Israel is no more and many more Jews have died.

Current Mood: discontentdiscontent
Tags:

(1 comment | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:2dumb4politics
Date:November 13th, 2006 09:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Which I would like to point out the statement that the MSM will never show this...

The same mainstream media that broadcast the pre-invasion lies about Iraq with minimal criticism but maximum coverage? That one?
Powered by LiveJournal.com