Since my original post involving International Judge Muhammad
information has been discovered. The event has a Facebook
which informs us that the great day of judgment will be September 11,
2012, with the trial to take place in Gainesville, Fl. from 5 to 8
p.m. It also has a promotional video, which is embedded
In anticipation of the possibility that political,
legal and or financial attacks in the intervening months will
cause cancellation of the event, I have paraphrased the questions
propounded by Rev. Terry Jones in the promotional video and will answer
Was Muhammad a Prophet?
Moe was a profiteer, not a Prophet. While he
claimed to be a ‘warner’ bringing Allah’s ‘guidance’ for mankind, his
true motivation was mercenary, as revealed with great clarity in Surah
Moe settled a dispute over spoils by claiming them
for himself. Can an impotent idol use and enjoy captured camels, armor
and women? But Moe could, and did. Don’t go away, there is
more; Moe distributed spoils among his companions who fought, but took
the top 20% for himself.
- And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily
one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and
to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad )], (and also) the
orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer,…
Other verses such as 48:15,19,20
&21 promise spoils to be captured, but 8:67 explicitly reveals
Moe’s prime motivating factor. I have quoted the entire ayeh,
highlighting the crucial phrase, because this ayeh makes several
important points bearing on other questions.
- It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and
free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his
enemies) in the land. You desire the good of
(i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires
(for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
What did we learn from 8:67?
- Waging war is one of the missions of Prophets.
- Great slaughter is a prerequisite for ransoming prisoners for
- Allah desires great slaughter.
- Moe desired ransom money.
We learned that Islam is militant, genocidal & mercenary;
that loot was Moe’s prime motivating factor.
Moe’s economic prime motivating factor is sufficient
to prove my case, but I like to pile on the facts so as to make the
obvious truth absolutely beyond dispute. Far from being a
Prophet, receiving divine dicta, Moe was a conniving hallucinator. Lets
see how Moe received his ‘inspiration’.
At times it comes to me like the ringing of a
bell and that is most severe for me and when it is over I retain
that (what I had received in the form of wahi), and at times an Angel in the
form of a human being comes to me (and speaks) and I retain
whatever he speaks.
Samit reported that when wahi (inspiration) descended upon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon
him), he felt a
burden on that account and the colour of his face underwent a change.
Allah’s Apostle replied, “Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell,
this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state
passes ‘ off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel
comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever
he says.” ‘Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired
Divinely on a very
cold day and noticed
the Sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was
The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah’s Apostle was in
the form of good
dreams which came
true like bright day light, and then the love of seclusion
was bestowed upon him.
“Allah’s Apostle used to bear the revelation with great trouble
and used to move
his lips (quickly) with the Inspiration.”
He said (to the Holy Prophet): What do you command me to do during my
Umra? (It was at this juncture) that the revelation came
to the Apostle of Allah (way peace be upon him) and he was covered with a
cloth, and Ya’la said: Would that I see revelation coming to the
Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him). He (Hadrat ‘Umar) said: Would
it please you to see the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him)
receiving the revelations ‘Umar lifted a corner of the cloth and I
looked at him and he
was emitting a sound of snorting. He (the narrator) said: I
thought it was the sound of a camel.
Lets recap the highlights of ‘inspiration’.
- ringing bell
- angel speaking
- change of color
- lost consciousness
Moe received ‘inspiration” in dreams and epileptic fits, which is
obvious from the reports included in the two most authentic of the
canonical hadith collections.
Many ahadith describe the circumstances of
revelation, a few samples should suffice. If not, use your
favorite hadith search engine to find this phrase, without the
quotes: “was revealed”.
When the Divine Inspiration: “Those of
the believers who sit (at home), was revealed the Prophet sent for Zaid (bin Thabit) who came with a
shoulder-blade and wrote on it. Ibn Um-Maktum complained
about his blindness and on that the following revelation came:
“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are
disabled (by injury, or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive
hard and fight in the Way of Allah with their wealth and lives).” (4.95)
That he heard Allah’s Apostle, when
raising his head from bowing of the first Rak’a of the morning prayer,
saying, “O Allah! Curse so-and-so and so-and-so” after he had said,
“Allah hears him who sends his praises to Him. Our Lord, all the
Praises are for you!” So Allah revealed:–
“Not for you (O Muhammad! )……(till the end of Verse) they are
indeed wrong-doers.” (3.128) Salim bin ‘Abdullah said’ “Allah’s Apostle
used to invoke evil upon Safwan bin Umaiya, Suhail bin ‘Amr and
Al-Harith bin Hisham. So the Verse was revealed:–
“Not for you (O Muhammad!)……(till the end of Verse) For they are
indeed wrong-doers.” (3.128)
Zainab, Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) has sent (me) with a
message to you. She said: I do not do anything until I solicit the will
of my Lord. So she stood at her place of worship and the (verse of) the
Qur’an (pertaining to her marriage) were revealed, and Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to her without permission.
It seems to me that your Lord hastens to
satisfy your desire.
We don’t need to be Prophets to see what is plain
and obvious on the face of the texts: Moe ‘revealed’ situational
scripture. Even his child bride was wise to him. Thus it
becomes clear to us that Moe was a profiteer, not a Prophet.
Was Muhammad a liar?
The answer to the previous question makes this one
obvious: situational scripture is a blasphemous lie against God.
Moe ‘revealed’ permission for his sexual proclivities and marital
Religion of :
The question is misleading because it assumes that
Islam is a religion. In fact, Islam is a way of life having a
faith & ritual component which serves as a social control
mechanism, troop motivator and camouflage to prevent prospective
victims from recognizing approaching danger.
war or Peace?
War: Islam is jihad as made clear by a saying
collected in Sunan Abu Dawud.
you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad
(struggle in the way of Allah). Allah
will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original
Allah will curse Muslims if they exchange agriculture or trade for
jihad as a way of making a living. Take a good, long look at the
last highlighted clause in the last sentence of the hadith. Let
me make the analysis easy for you with an outline.
- abandon jihad
- cursed with disgrace
- until you return to your original religion.
They left jihad; they return to their original religion: jihad is their
original religion. What is jihad? For the legal definition,
we turn to Reliance of the Traveller, the all purpose handbook of
Shafi’ite fiqh aka. Shari’ah.
means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived
from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.
Jihad is war against non-Muslims. War is the religion of Muslims.
Examine the similar definition provided by the translators of the Noble
Qur’an as a footnote to 2:190.
Allâh’s Cause (with full force of
numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost
importance in Islâm and is one of its pillar (on which it
stands). By Jihâd
Islâm is established,
Allâh’s Word is made superior, (His Word being Lâ ilaha illallâh which
means none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and His Religion
(Islâm) is propagated. By abandoning Jihâd (may
Allâh protect us from that) Islâm is destroyed and
the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their
lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.
Jihâd is an obligatory duty in Islâm on every Muslim, and he who tries
to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to
fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.
Narrated ‘Abdullâh bin Mas‘ûd رضي الله عنه: I asked Allâh’s Messenger
صلى الله عليه وسلم “O Allâh’s Messenger! What is the best deed?” He
replied, “To offer the Salât (prayers) at their early fixed stated
times.” I asked, “What is next in goodness?” He replied, “To be good
and dutiful to your parents.” I further asked, “What is next in
goodness?” He replied, “To participate in Jihâd in Allâh’s Cause.” I
did not ask Allâh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم anymore and if I had
asked him more, he would have told me more. (Sahih Al-Bukhâri, Vol.4,
Of course, the question is
redundant. But, since I did not propound it, I can, in good
conscience, exploit it to expand on the relationship
between Islam and war. Jihad: warfare against non-Muslims,
is ordained for Muslims in 2:216.
(holy fighting in Allâh’s Cause)
is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may
be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a
thing which is bad for you.
The first reaction to that ordinance must be to
assume that it refers to defense. In Mecca, weak; with no army,
Moe preached tolerance and forbearance. In Medina, when he built a
fighting force, Moe preached defensive and retaliatory jihad. As
his army grew in numbers and capability, he preached offensive
is given to those (i.e. believers against disbelievers), who are
fighting them, (and) because they (believers)
have been wronged, and surely, Allâh is Able to give
them (believers) victory
2:190. And fight in the Way of Allâh those who fight you,
but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the
transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in
connection with Jihâd, but it was supplemented by another (V.9:36)].
2:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where
they have turned you out.
And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at
Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight
you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the
recompense of the disbelievers.
And fight them
until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e.
worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will
all be for Allâh Alone
[in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others
besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
(1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that
which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who
acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the
Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the
Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
The last two ayat quoted above command offensive,
not defensive conquest. If any doubt remains, click through to
their topics in Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Reliance of the Traveller.
Islamic law declares that the caliph makes war against Jews &
Christians and fights all other peoples until they become Muslims.
There is no hope in hell of disproving the obvious because of a cryptic
expression in a preceding section, decrypted by another quote. Hedaya
contains a parallel expression which removes all possibility of doubt.
These quotes come from Shari’ah: Islamic jurisprudence.
In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and
give him peace) jihad
was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to
Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in
respect to non-Muslims.
The first is when they
are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a
communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he
says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims
least that the imam
must do is that he allow no year to pass
having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his
parties, according to the Muslims’ interest, so that the jihad will
only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse.”
- The destruction of the
incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors,
appears from various passages in the sacred writings which are
generally received this effect.
- The destruction of the
- Marginal Note
may be attacked without provocation.
- Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter II, Page 141
Moe made statements confirming the jihad imperatives, one
of them should be sufficient in the light of other evidence supplied
above. This hadith also bears upon the last two questions which follow.
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered
to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped
but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla
and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be
sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and
their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah
that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and
property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the
right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers,
prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and
has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”
I will outline that to make it clear for the slow learners in
- Ordered to fight
- confirming 8:39, 9:28 & 9:123
- until they testify & practice
- the jihad imperative is offensive, not defensive
- their blood and property will be
- our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims, we are
targets of an open season
- our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims, we are
- then he is a Muslim and has got the same rights…
- until we become Muslims we have no rights.
Review Sahih Bukhari 1.8.367
which was quoted and analyzed immediately above. The blood and
property of disbelievers are not sacred to Muslims: in other words, we
have no right to life; its open season on us.
second class citizens?
When Muslims conquer
infidel territory, the indigenous people not conmverted, slain,
enslaved or driven out become dhimmis: “protected” people. Who are they
protected from? From Muslims, by virtue of paying jizya, which is
extortion money paid in lieu of execution.
Muslims will dance about in circles, chanting, “but
they don’t pay Zakat and they don’t fight in jihad”. They may kiss my
fat, smelly, deformed, ulcerated foot. Jews & Christians only
become dhimmis as a result of being conquered or intimidated;
dhimmitude is not a voluntary condition, it is imposed by force; a
result of conquest.
- “When the
Muslims enter the enemy’s country, and besiege the
cities or strongholds of the infidels, it is necessary to invite them
to embrace the faith, because Ibn Abbas relates of the prophet
never destroyed any without previously inviting them to embrace the
faith.’ If, therefore, they embrace the faith, it is unnecessary
to war with them because that which was the design of the war is then
obtained without war. The prophet, moreover, has said ‘we are directed
to make war upon men until such time as they shall confess there is no God but one God; but when they repeat this creed, their
persons and properties are in protection. ” If they do not accept
the call to faith, they must then be called upon
to pay the jizya, or capitation-tax; because the prophet directed the
commander of his armies so to do; and also, because by submitting to
this tax, war is forbidden and terminated, upon the authority of
- for as to apostates and idolators of Arabia, to call upon them to
pay the tax is useless, since nothing is accepted from
embracing the faith, as it is thus commanded in the Koran)
Is that clear enough for you? For the benefit
of politicians, professors, preachers and assorted other Morons I will
gild the skunk weed with excessive redundant detail.
- “The arguments of Haneefa upon this point are twofold. First, capitation-tax is a sort
of punishment inflicted upon infidels for their
obstinancy in infidelity, ( as was before stated;p) whence it is
it cannot bve accepted of the infidel if he send it by the hands of a
messenger, but must be exacted in a mortifying
and humiliating manner,
by the collector sitting and receiving it from him in a standing
posture: (according to one tradition, the collector is to seize him by
the throat, and shake him, saying, Pay your tax, Zimmee!)’ –it is
therefore evident that capitation-tax is a punishment; and where
two punishments come together, they are compounded, in the same manner
as in Hidd, or stated punishment. Secondly, capitation-tax is a
substitute for destruction in respect to the infidels, and a
for personal aid in respect to the Muslims, (as was before
observed;_–but it is a substitute for
destruction with regard to the
future, not with regard to the past, because infidels are
liable to be
put to death only in future, in consequence of future war, and not in
the past. “
This outline is for the benefit of the low
functioning Morons and high functioning Imbeciles in the audience.
- jizya is
- punishment for infidelity
- intended to be humiliating
- substitute for being killed
Dhimis are subjected to severe social and legal
restrictions besides suffering extortion, the list comes from Reliance
of the Traveller.
Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply
with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life,
reputation, and property. In
-1- are penalized for committing adultery or
theft, thought not for drunkenness;
-2- are distinguished from
Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
-3- are not greeted with
-4- must keep to the side of
-5- may not build higher
than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they
acquire a tall house, it is not razed;
-6- are forbidden to openly
display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,)
recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their
funerals and feastdays;
-7- and are forbidden to build new
They are forbidden to reside in
the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and
Yamama, for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter
there for something they need).
“If Muhammad is found
guilty, then Muhammad, Islam and his
teachings will be severely punished.” Moe died in 632, placing him
beyond the power of Rev. Jones to impose punishment. We can only
hope and pray that Moe is suffering the torment of the grave, preparatory to richly
deserved eternal damnation.
Islam is Moe’s teachings, books full of excrement,
believed in and implemented by mortal men. It is not in Rev. Jones’
power to punish Moe or his teachings. Burning the Qur’an was
purely symbolic. Burning the hadith, tafsir, jurisprudence, biography
& history of Islam would do no more benefit.
In remarks prepared for delivery to the Wilson Center August 1, 2007, then Senator Obama expressed ideas which can only result from extreme ignorance or treason. I became aware of this speech through a quote in a Los Angeles Times opinion article by Jack Miles.
In that speech, Senator Obama expressed his intention to address a major Islamic forum “to redefine our struggle“. Jack Miles indicates that the speech is to be delivered to the Turkish Parliament Monday, April 6, 2009.
When President Obama addresses the Turkish parliament on Monday, he will have the chance to fulfill a campaign promise. Before the secular legislature of a Muslim-majority country — and with the entire Muslim ummahummah listening — he can state plainly that the United States is not at war with Islam.
I have selected some of the most egregious idiocies from the prepared text, including them here ( in block quotes) differentiated from my comments by font style.
[...]We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support.[...]
There is no new enemy; we are assailed by an old enemy, one which attacked our commercial shipping in the 18th century: Islam. When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman by what right the Barbary Pirates attacked our ships, he gave them a clear answer, one which should be taken to heart by our present leaders.
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven. [Wikipedia]
Their “right and duty” to attack us is written in the Koran. Who will bother to read 8:39, 8:60, 9:29 and 9:123? Not our President, neither our legislators, nor our military officers; they can’t be bothered with reality, preferring to live in fantasy land.
The “terrorists’ base of support” is the Ummah al-Islamiya, ordinary Muslims who contribute Zakat toward their support. Those who stay at home are required to contribute to the support of the Mujahideen at the front.
[...]Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.[...]
Presidents Carter, Clinton Bush & Obama all misrepresented our enemy, claiming that we are assailed by a “tiny minority of extremists” motivated by legitimate grievances. Islam is the enemy, driven by immutable intrinsic doctrines enshrined in the Koran and exemplified in Moe’s sunna. Casting terror into the hearts of Islam’s enemies is an intrinsic sacrament, clearly established by 3:151, 8:12, 8:60, 33:26 & 59:2 and confirmed by Bukhari 4.52.220 & 1.7.331.
Islam is at war with us, and all non-Muslims not under a treaty of protection imposed upon victims of Islamic intimidation and conquest. The war is dictated by Allah’s commands in 8:39 & 9:29, which Moe confirmed in Bukhari 1.8.387, saying “I have been ordered to fight”. It is Shari’ah, codified in Umdat as-Salik O9.8.
The “terrorists” do not “distort Islam”; they obey Allah who ordered them to “strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies” and emulate Moe, who said “I have been made victorious with terror“. Islam is fighting against us, and we should be fighting to secure life & liberty.
[...]But America must be about more than taking out terrorists and locking up weapons, or else new terrorists will rise up to take the place of every one we capture or kill. That is why the third step in my strategy will be drying up the rising well of support for extremism.[...]
“Extremism” is a shibboleth which must be exposed. The founder of Islam bragged about winning with terror. Allah commanded it, Moe exemplified it: it is the standard, unexceptional. Terrorism’s well of support is the Koran, its support flows through the family, Mosque and every structure of Islamic society.
[...]We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim – nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites.[...]
That paragraph alludes to and reinforces another shibboleth: “terrorism is grievance driven”. Numerous splodydopes were from middle and upper class families, students of law & medicine, with promising careers in prospect. They chose to end their lives in an effort to kill Kufar, please Allah and gain admission to the Celestial Bordello.
Their “hate-filled websites” reflect the contents of their hate-filled Koran, hadith & Shari’ah. Those Muslims are not hopeless, they hope to conquer and dominate the entire world, as Allah promised they will.
[...]America is at war with terrorists who killed on our soil. We are not at war with Islam. America is a compassionate nation that wants a better future for all people. The vast majority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims have no use for bin Ladin or his bankrupt ideas. But too often since 9/11, the extremists have defined us, not the other way around.[...]
[...]As President, I will lead this effort. In the first 100 days of my Administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence. I will speak directly to that child who looks up at that helicopter, and my message will be clear: “You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”[...]
Their future, promised by Allah, is total world conquest and domination. The Prophet of “hate and violence” was Moe, who revealed Allah’s conquest, genocide & terror imperatives. “Your future is our future. And our moment is now.” President Barack Hussein Obama is one of them. You fools, what have you done!
Here we go again with the Double Standards. Michelle Malkin has a piece at RCP and she is asking why the Lame Stream Media isn’t screeching their usual screeching yakkity-yak.
Read the piece and afterwards, send a get-well wish to the Airman.
When Peaceniks Attack, Journalists Snooze
A young Air Force airman is fighting for his life in Camden, N.J. He was shot on Independence Day by a crazed gunman who reportedly had a beef with the military and the U.S. government and “wanted to make a statement” on the Fourth of July. Have you heard about the plight of 22-year-old McGuire Air Force Base loadmaster Jonathan Schrieken? Probably not.
The shooting got no mention in The New York Times — not even a squib in a back section (though the paper did see fit to put the shooting of a 7-year-old girl in Trenton on the front page).
“Turns out the guy left a couple of suicide notes stating how much he hated the military and he wanted to go out making a statement, so he chose to make his statement on Independence Day trying to kill a soldier. We are very worried about our Airman . . . he’s like a son to me. He’s been to Iraq and Afghanistan on our behalf and then gets shot in his own driveway here in the U.S. by an anti-war, anti-American lunatic. This is gut wrenching.”
Now, imagine the scenario flipped: What if a soldier had attempted to murder a peace activist over the holidays in order to “make a statement”? The Times would be holding front-page vigil, and Katie Couric’s brow would be furrowed for a week. The yakkity yaks on “The View” would be clucking their tongues about the culture of violence bred by the military — and who knows what Rosie O’Donnell would be dressing her poor child in to exploit the story on her website.
The above are samples of the whole article but I am sure you get the gist.
Bush: Will he stay the course as others run? “America good! Al Qaeda bad!” – A trader in the Qatana bazaar, Ramadi, Iraq
Rich Lowry…NY Post
THIS is a sentiment that the Iraqi trader felt safe to utter as a visiting U.S. gen eral passed by, according to John Burns of The New York Times, only after a furtive glance “up and down the narrow refuse-strewn street to check who might be listening.” In a microcosm, this is the reason why we’re finally making progress against al Qaeda in Iraq: The protection afforded by American combat power has made it possible for Iraqis in Sunni areas to turn against the terror group.
In a global struggle against Islamic extremism, it is an incontestably welcome development that ordinary Sunnis in the Arab heartland are spurning al Qaeda. The extremist group has been on a campaign of savagery in Iraq that has discredited its own cause. The grassroots revolt against it means that it is within our reach to deny al Qaeda its most important current geopolitical objective, which is plunging Iraq into a bloody chaos in which it can thrive.
But a group of Republican senators have picked precisely this moment to call for deconstructing the troop surge that has begun to give us the upper hand against al Qaeda. They thus reveal a key dishonesty in the debate over the war: Everyone professes to want to fight al Qaeda in Iraq – as opposed to policing the sectarian war – but the number of politicians willing to support the means to that end is ever-dwindling.
The Two Muppeteers, Reid and Pelosi, are at it again. I guess they firmly desire to further their plunge into obscurity and place their names in The Book of All Time Losers. What are their approval ratings now? And why do they cater to the Vocal Minority on a continual basis? Your answer(s) are as good as my own. I just know that the two largest losers in the history of the United Stataes CONgress will introduce further loser mentality in the hopes to raise themselves above the primordial ooze in which they are drowning in at the moment.
From The Crypt:
Pelosi, Reid to announce new push to end Iraq war
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are expected tomorrow to announce a new coordinated effort to force votes in July to end the Iraq war, according to Democratic insiders.
Reid has already publicly declared that Senate Democrats will offer four Iraq-related amendments to the upcoming 2008 Defense authorization bill, including a proposal by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to set a firm timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring.
Pelosi is planning to announce that the House will also vote on a bill setting a new withdrawal timetable of April 1, 2008, although the details of the proposal were still up in the air at press time, according to Democratic sources. The House will consider this proposal as a freestanding bill, said the sources.
Pelosi is also planning to force a vote on a proposal by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to repeal the 2002 use-of-force resolution for Iraq. This “deauthorization” proposal may be offered as an amendment to the 2008 Defense spending bill, which the House is scheduled to take up following the week-long July 4th recess.
In addition, House Democrats will push proposals to prohibit the creation of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, as well as a “readiness” initiative similar to that authored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). The Webb proposal would limit deployments of U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq by requiring the Pentagon to keep military units from being sent back to Iraq until they have been stateside as long as they were in the combat zone.
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the powerful Defense subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee and a leader of the anti-war movement, is planning to offer his own new measures as part of the Defense spending bill.
Pelosi has been quietly meeting with various factions within the Democratic Caucus this week on the Iraq initiative, including Blue Dog conservatives skittish about being seen as anti-military, and the Out of Iraq Caucus, whose members have pushed hard for an end to the U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
Both Pelosi and Reid have come to the conclusion that President Bush’s plan for a “surge” in the number of U.S. troops inside Iraq, has failed and that Democrats, despite losing their showdown with Bush and the Republicans over the recent Iraq supplemental funding bill, must continue to force votes to end the war. Gen. David Petraeus is supposed to report back to Congress in September on the state of the “surge,” but Democrats have decided not to wait for his report.
“The surge is a failure, it isn’t working,” said a Democratic aide familiar with the new initiative. “We just can’t leave American soldiers out there dying and not do anything.”
Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus attended a meeting with Pelosi, other Democratic leaders and the Blue Dog lawmakers today.
After the meeting, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Democratic leaders “are working to build a consensus” within the Caucus on the Iraq proposals, but promised votes all next month on the issue. Hoyer said no date had been scheduled at this time for any of these votes, although the Defense spending bill is set to reach the House floor in mid-July.