Democrats: 'No comment' on terrorists' endorsement

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.

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.

MY PREDICTION...

- (assumption) November, 2006: Democrats take control of the US House.

- US forces are quickly drawn out of Iraq. Either Democrats force this directly or Republicans do it to try to save their party's fortunes, but either way Iraq is free of US forces by the 2008 elections.

- Iraq struggles on for two years, but without the US military stabilizing things until it can get settled, eventually the situation deteriorates into civil war.

- The Kurds see how this will go and break away to form their own country. They would rather be alone and alive than united with other Iraqis but killed on a daily basis. They close their borders, and with the stroke of a pen, half of Iraq's oil lies with them. The Sunnis and Shi'ites are forced to fight over the spoils. They immediately broker an agreement with the US to protect them and use oil money to build bases for the US Air Force.

- With no oil in western Iraq, the Sunnis fight even harder against the Shi'ites. In reaction, the Shi'ites ask for Iranian assistance. Bit by bit, but growing over time, they get it.

- All the while, Iran has been working feverishly on an atomic bomb, and they succeed by 2010. They do NOT announce it. Indeed, they do everything they can to give the impression that they are experiencing difficulties.

- Out of Iraq proper since 2008, the US has no control over the situation. Had they not invaded and Saddam had died of age (or assassination), the situation would be little different. Does the US help the former Saddam-supporting Sunnis against Iranian hegemony, or they assist the Shi'a even though it also assists Iran? The US decides to help neither, choosing to cut their losses and at least salvage the Kurds. They hope not to anger anyone, and in their inaction manage to anger both sides as the Sunnis and Shi'a (especially the Shi'a) feel that they have been abandoned.

OPTION 1 ... if the Iranians are sane

- With Shi'a allies to the south (who are increasingly angry at the US and jealous of the Kurds, who have been free of violence), Iran makes their move. They attack the northern Kurds. The Kurds have little chance and could fall quickly. Iran's strategy is to take northern Iraq all the way to Syria. This would allow them to more directly threaten Israel as well as create a border with their main ally in the region, something impossible until the US had left Iraq (which was one reason the US invaded Iraq in the first place).

- The US acts, having signed an agreement to protect the Kurds. The military is mobilized, with the intention of having a "Kuwait II" -- drive the Iranians back to their borders but no further.

- Iran makes an announcement: the US is to vacate Kurdistan and leave Iran alone, or atomic bombs will begin to explode not only in the US, but all over the western world. Small bombs have been smuggled throughout the US and Europe by "loyal Islamic soldiers" and can be set off without warning.

- The West stands down and does nothing, bickering and pointing fingers instead among the mass panic in their cities. The West has entered the era of Nuclear Blackmail.

OPTION 2 ... if the Iranians are insane

- Iranian leaders decide that the only way for Islam to take over is to destroy the West, especially the World Police Officer, the US. They feel that Europe will eventually fall via population pressures, but the US would only fall by the sword. They smuggle atomic bombs to twenty, even thirty US cities.

- Even though one smuggler is caught by the undermanned and underfunded Border Patrol, US authorities keep it quiet to prevent panic and to protect their political careers.

- On a spring day, the US is blanketed by blinding flashes of light. The Iranians are setting Islam on the path to world domination. They know they will die by US ICBM's and SSBN's, but they feel the numbers game is on their side in the long run. It might take a century or two, but they feel that Islam will eventually dominate the world.

- True to their suspicions, before the sun sets Iran is reduced to radioactive dust, but not before 120 million Americans have suffered the same fate. The supreme irony is that, due to Iranian targeting of cities and industrial centers, 75% of them are the same Democrats who allowed the Iranians the ability to murder them in the first place.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.