Democrats: 'No comment'on terrorists' endorsement

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
Democrats: 'No comment'on terrorists' endorsement
DNC, Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy decline
to discuss jihadists' vote of confidence
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52775
By Bob Unruh


National leaders in the Democratic Party, including Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee, potential House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, possible presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and longtime party stalwart Ted Kennedy don't want to talk with WorldNetDaily about an endorsement their party has received.

The endorsement came via a WND article by Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein, who interviewed leaders of several prominent Mideast terrorist organizations, including Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Islamic Jihad.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, and infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Jaara and others told WND that they believe if the Democrats come into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

But WND was unable to get a single comment from dozens of telephone calls made over two days and messages left with various leaders' offices and press secretaries.

"I'll see what we can do," was the best response WND obtained when asking for a comment on the endorsement, and that came from Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Hammill in Pelosi's office. It came on the third call to that office.

The Democratic National Committee was approached at least six times, and multiple messages were deposited on a voice mail system handled by the courteous Rosemary, who said, "We're extremely busy," but there was no response, even after one spokesman in Sen. Barack Obama's officer referred WND to the DNC because such a question would be in "Chairman Dean's" territory.

The Democratic Leadership Council's response to multiple phone calls was similar, a promise to call back later.

At least three messages left with Sen. Clinton's office went unreturned after a receptionist forwarded the calls to an answering machine, which informed WND that, "No one is available to take your call at this time."

Calls to Sen. Kennedy's office actually reached a live person, who listened to the request and promised, "If we're able to we'll shoot you something. We can't promise."

Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar's office generated a merry-go-round of telephone numbers. A call to his Washington office generated a referral to a Denver office, which generated a referral to a press office, which generated a referral to a cell phone. When a spokesman answered that number, the caller was referred back to the press office, which had an answering machine attached to the line. Leave a message.

A call to Sen. Harry Reid also allowed the caller to leave a message.

On the Republican side, Sen. Tom Tancredo, of Colorado, said those Mideast leaders are right – in one way.

He told WND that the assessment by terrorists who suggested U.S. voters choose the Democrats on Tuesday because they believe an expected removal of U.S. troops from the Mideast would hand their factions victory is hard to dispute.

"I guess the conclusion to which anyone could come … maybe they recognize that both the general nature of the Democratic Party and the people who are at its head are folks that would rather cut and run than stand their ground on an issue of this nature," he said.

"They're right. I also worry about a lot of things, the way the war has been prosecuted. But beyond Iraq, here's what I believe. I believe that there are more Republicans than Democrats that understand we are in a clash of civilizations.

"In fact the idea that Western civilization has advantages over other civilizations, that is not a concept that most Democrats would buy into and I think the radical Islamic groups recognize that," he said.

The president's recent statements also have given those factions reason to hope for better results under a Democrat Party leadership than the existing decision-makers.

"Our goal in Iraq is victory," Bush said during a campaign stop this week. "Victory in Iraq will come when that young democracy can sustain itself, and govern itself, and defend itself, and be a strong ally in the war against terrorists.

"The fighting in Iraq is tough, and I understand it's tough, and you know it's tough, and so does the enemy. They have no conscience. They kill innocent men, women and children. They film the atrocities, they broadcast them for the world to see. They offer no hopeful vision. The only thing they know is death and destruction.

"But they hope these violent images will cause us to lose our nerve. They make a big mistake. They do not understand the true strength of the United States. We don't run in the face of thugs and assassins, we'll defend ourselves," he said.
 
You don't really expect any sane Democrat to actually respond to this? They have absolutly NOTHING to gain by dong that except vindicating the premise of the terrorists. They are better off ignoring it, which allows them to say (through inference) the terrorists' comments are so unimportant they're NOT worth thinking about.

Now, me, yeah, it does mean something -- it shows very clearly the terrorists may be evil and ruthless but they're not ignorant and dumb -- they keep tabs on our politics and social events. They certainly watch CNN, maybe Fox, BBC, etc. They not only think tactically, but strategically.
Which is a tad better than many of our politicians can do.:banghead:
 
Last edited:
republican-lies.jpg


No comment necessary here either.
 
And then they released the Iranian hostages just before Reagan was sworn in... or was that another Republican lie?
 
Now, me, yeah, it does mean something -- it shows very clearly the terrorists may be evil and ruthless but they're not ignorant and dumb -- they keep tabs on our politics and social events. They certainly watch CNN, maybe Fox, BBC, etc. They not only think tactically, but strategically.

Geepers, I'm glad somebody gets it. Tommy's exactly right--terrorists are insane, but they're not stupid. Big difference. They are capable of strategic thought.

They read our papers, they surf the web, and they talk to people. If they actually wanted Democrats to win, they'd either shut their yaps or go into hiding. It's not lost on them that as they release video tapes and press releases of their moronic rantings right before the elections that it helps the GOP.

Why would terrorists want the GOP to win? Because Iraq and Afghanistan are the greatest recruiting tools they've ever had. These idiots fancy a global conflagration and an end-of-times type religious battle spanning the globe.

They know they've got a better chance of getting that from the neocons than Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi. That's not hard to figure out; safe to say they can put that together pretty easily.

The idea that they're on the ropes and wanting a respite from our efforts, and that they'll get it from the Dems, it's such a sexy concept, and hard to let go of, isn't it?

But you have to. It's just not the case. These are people who WANT to die for their cause, not make peace or be left alone.

So what does it mean? Cast your vote to protect the 2A. Cast your vote to end corruption in DC. Cast your vote because you like the way the guy looks on camera. Cast your vote because you think he had a nice tie collection.

But don't cast your vote cause you think you're hurting Osama's feelings. You're not.
 
The enemy using domestic unrest to their advantage would hardly be a new concept...

I caught the tail-end of a special on Cold War spies on the History Channel last night...

Apparently the KGB was quite active "behind the scenes" in the U.K. "peace movement...!" :uhoh:
 
Some of the responses to this thread reveal quite a bit of denial and simpleminded thinking - or maybe what is revealed is just leftist/socialist demagoguery.

Vote Democrat? Gut the war effort? Oh, no - that would NEVER help the Islamic fascists achieve their goals!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I guess in some people's minds, fighting an actual war against terrorism and voting for those who take the fight to the enemy is worse than what was done to America on 9-11.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top