Al-Qaida cares who wins in Iraq

FRANK MIELE

Last week, the American media was blaringly silent on the issue of al-Qaida endorsing the Democratic plan for withdrawal from Iraq.

I suppose it might be seen as vaguely embarrassing to the Democrats - kind of like having Charles Manson endorse someone for president because the candidate is sufficiently soft on crime.

But you would expect the mainstream media, with its vaunted ideals and undying quest for the truth, to have realized the significance of the moment when the Democratic proposal was welcomed by al-Qaida as an acknowledgment of "American failure."

Instead, what you got was an obligatory news story or two about the video being released, and then a deep abiding silence. It's almost as though the media and the Democrats were taking a pre-9/11 approach to the story - If we ignore it, maybe it will go away.

In case you blinked and missed the story altogether, here it is: On May 5, Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is the Joseph Goebbels of al-Qaida - devout follower and propagandist of the movement's Hitler, Osama bin Laden - made his latest Internet video pitch for the destruction of America and establishment of a united Islamic empire over much of the world.

Most significant was Zawahiri's assessment of the recent congressional gambit of trying to force President Bush to quit the Iraq war by setting a timetable for withdrawal. Zawahiri welcomed the Democratic bill, which was subsequently vetoed by President Bush, as an acknowledgment by America that it was defeated.

"This bill reflects American failure and frustration," he said, and he lamented that the prospect of American surrender might mean the jihadis would lose their chance to kill thousands of U.S. soldiers.

"… [T]his bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap. We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing two hundred to three hundred thousand killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson which will motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system which produced their historic criminal Crusader/Zionist entity."

If you took al-Qaida seriously as a threat, you would have to be a little worried, right?

I mean, this could actually be seen as a threat to attack U.S. soldiers in greater numbers before the Democratic timetable for surrender kicked in, right? Maybe even a threat to use weapons of mass destruction. How, after all, would you kill 200,000 or more troops?

Is it possible that al-Qaida could try something as brazen and daring and deadly as attacking U.S. soldiers in their own bases to maximize casualties?

Nah, that could never happen.

Just the usual Islamic hot air, right?

Except it wasn't hot air when Zawahiri and bin Laden swore to strike a mighty blow against the United States before 9/11, was it?

Even the Democrats seem to understand the danger of al-Qaida in hindsight. After all, they constantly harp on the colossal blunder of George Bush in failing to act swiftly after getting the daily briefing entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" on August 6, 2001, fully a month before the planned al-Qaida attack that took place on September 11.

The top-secret briefing for the president began by noting that bin Laden had publicly said he and his followers would "bring the fighting to America." It then noted that bin Laden "prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks." It warned that Al-Qaida members "- including some who are U.S. citizens - have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years."

Scary stuff. And the briefing said there had been some intelligence which suggested that al-Qaida was making "preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."

According to the liberals who hate President Bush he should have read that briefing and then gone into Harrison Ford mode (a la "Air Force One") and kicked some terrorist butt. Of course, there is no explanation of how he could have done so without arousing the wrath of the American Civil Liberties Union and other defenders of the jihadis. Remember, there was no Patriot Act then, and no real mechanism to pro-actively defend the country against a vague and fanciful conjecture that Mideastern mujahadeen could attack New York City and kill thousands of innocent civilians. The vanguard of laughing hyenas on late-night TV and in the cable jungle would have savaged the president viciously for his paranoid fantasies.

But not in hindsight.

In hindsight, the Democrats tell you, the president was wrong to be cautious. He should have canceled flights, put troops in airports, tapped phones, read e-mails. How dare he ignore the vague threat of the daily briefing? Instead he did nothing and led the country down the primrose path of over-confidence. He was a miserable fool who got us into trouble by underestimating al-Qaida, and then made matters worse by not going after al-Qaida harder in Afghanistan. In hindsight, the president led the country astray by getting us involved in a war in Iraq instead, and now he stubbornly refuses to admit his error and we have to depend on the wise heads of Congress to save us from the quagmire.

That's what hindsight would have you believe if you listen to Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and all the other bright lights of the Democratic Party.

In hindsight, George Bush should have acted swiftly and decisively against the vague threat of al-Qaida in the United States. Probably nearly everyone really believes that, even most Democrats. But now that we have a real enemy, with not vague threats but definite ones, the Democratic leadership can think of no better solution than to pull head and feet into shell and go into Turtle Armor mode. Hindsight 20-20; foresight non-existent.

But you don't need foresight any longer; you just need to listen to the words of your sworn enemy - the words of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the architect of the Jihad against America - in his May 5 interview:

"The Jihad in Iraq today, by the Grace of Allah, is moving from the stage of defeat of the Crusader invaders and their traitorous underlings to the stage of consolidating a Mujahid Islamic Emirate which will liberate the homelands of Islam, protect the sacred things of the Muslims, implement the rules of the Shari'ah, give the weak and oppressed their rights back, and raise the banner of Jihad as it makes its way through a rugged path of sacrifice and giving towards the environs of Jerusalem, with Allah's permission."

Al-Qaida seems to think that the war in Iraq actually matters. They seem to think that if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, then al-Qaida has won a major victory in its war to first conquer all the Muslim homelands and then to conquer Israel. And if you don't think an Islamic caliphate spanning three continents is a danger, you haven't been any more paying attention than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has. Indeed, after reading the interview with Zawahiri, it is obvious that he has a much better understanding of global geopolitics than Reid.

You remember Harry Reid, don't you? He was the first one to declare that the "war is lost," before Zawahiri took up the chant. This obvious parallel was left unspoken in most discussion of Zawahiri's proclamations, but if you see Harry Reid and Ayman al-Zawahiri on the same side of an issue, what does that tell you? Anyone who cares about the continued existence of the United States cannot be happy to see our congressional leadership providing talking points for our sworn enemy. Which is why the momentous declaration of Zawahiri was barely reported by the left-wing media. It is dangerously inconvenient.