Stay the Hands of the Murdering Mullahs

Stay the Hands of the Murdering Mullahs    
Wednesday, 22 August 2007
To:  Individuals, Human Rights Organizations, and GovernmentsThe life that God gives, no man should extinguish. The blood-thirsty mullahs presently ruling Iran blatantly violate this sacred covenant by executing large numbers of people ranging from petty criminals to political opponents. The mullahs and their mercenaries are wasting precious human life to maintain themselves in power through terrorizing the population.

Mass public hangings, as well as secret executions in prisons, are routine in the tyrannical Islamic Republic of Iran. Recently Majid Kavousifar, 28, and his nephew, Hossein Kavousifar, 24, were hanged for the alleged murder of a hard-line judge, Hassan Moghaddas, a mullah-judge notorious for jailing and condemning to death political dissidents. The victims were hanged from cranes and hoisted high above one of Tehran’s busiest thoroughfares. This “judge” had repeatedly bragged publicly that he often issued a death verdict without even examining the charges against the individual. The Islamic Republic of Iran has the dubious distinction of executing more children, those under the age of 18, than any other country in the world. Such is the plight of the Iranian people.Robert Tait of The Observer reported on August 19, 2007 from Tehran that “Iran Hangs 30 Over ‘US Plots.’” Accusing political dissidents as being agents of the U.S. and hanging them without even a semblance of due process is a heinous crime that every descent human being should do all he/she can to end.

“Injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere,” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned us. Silence, complacency and indifference invariably play into the hands and schemes of tyrants. History is replete with cases of tyranny gathering momentum in the face of inaction by others, spreading far and wide and visiting great catastrophes on people.

We are also reminded by Albert Einstein, “The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”

It is imperative that we do all we can, as individuals, organizations, and governments to stay the hands of the murdering mullahs in Iran, before their thirst for blood leads their campaign of oppression and death to the four corners of the globe.

We the petitioners demand:

* Immediate disbanding of capital punishment in the Islamic Republic of Iran and wherever else in the world this inhuman act is practiced.

* No summary judgments to be made about any accused without thorough and open trials with the fundamental assumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

* The authorities who issue death warrants of others must be held accountable for their actions.


The Undersigned

Breaking: (F)lying imams finally dismiss John Does from lawsuit

56 Al Qaeda Killed In Central Baghdad

56 Al Qaeda Killed In Central Baghdad

August 22nd, 2007 Posted By Pat Dollard.


Baghdad – Voices of Iraq

Wednesday , 22 /08 /2007 Time 9:11:33

Baghdad, Aug 22, (VOI)- Iraqi security forces killed 56 gunmen on Wednesday during a security crackdown in al-Fadhel area, central Baghdad, the spokesman for the Interior Ministry said.

“Iraqi security forces launched a military operation, today, in al-Fadhel area in hunt for the Qaeda militants in the area, killing 56 of them,” General Abdul Karim Khalaf told a news conference.

The spokesman added “the operation has been the outcome of the cooperation between the local residents in al-Fadhel and the Iraqi security forces.”

“The forces clashed with the Qaeda militants, killing 56 of them while others who survived the operation fled the area,” General Khalaf also said.

Over the past months, Iraqi and U.S. forces have launched many military operations in hunt for the militants based in Al-Fadhel area.

Scenes from Eurabia: Women Should Know Their Place

Scenes from Scenes from Eurabia: Women Should Know Their Place :

Created 2007-08-21 10:31

“Women are simply not accepted by the Muslim community,” says Mohammed. “So women had also better not do this work.” Mohammed is my colleague social worker [integration civil servant] in Antwerp’s immigrant quarters. He looks at me gravely. “That is just the way it is, and that is why I prefer not to work with a woman, that simply doesn’t work.” He is complaining about another colleague, a Flemish woman who is his superior.

Mohammed does not think that this mentality about women and work is wrong. In fact, whoever questions this attitude is wrong because it is his culture and belief, which is why he accepts it, he “understands” it and we, Flemings, do not. Consequently we must accept it, until we “understand” as well.

He sighs. Yesterday it came to a clash with his female Flemish superior. Together with a team of mostly immigrant co-workers, she organizes meaningful recreational activities for the mostly Moroccan youths in the neighborhood. The Flemish superior is also close to despair. Working together with Mohammed is not plain sailing.

She has no support from her Moroccan colleagues. On the contrary, slowly but surely she is being frozen out. Whenever she appears in the square several older man gather round her and start speaking the Berber language with her male colleagues. “They want to marry you,” her male colleagues of Moroccan origin laugh, “because we said that you’re not married.” In the evening the men wait for her and bother her, why won’t she? Several girls of Moroccan origin grab her phone. Her Moroccan colleagues look the other way, also when older kids who always start arguments with her kick her shins until they are blue and threaten her.

She did not want to discuss the complete lack of fellowship, the negative attitude of the Moroccan colleagues. Her problem was Mohammed. He didn’t want to work together with her. He walked away during a conversation with her and went to pray in the meeting room, calling on Allah to stand by him in the discussion with a woman! Perplexity on the part of his female colleague.

Naturally she submitted her conflict with Mohammed, and his praying in the meeting room, to the management. Yes, it’s annoying, but now what? The problem was bought before the staff manager. Who, strangely enough, made a completely absurd accusation. Not Mohammed, but rather the female co-worker, had overstepped her bounds. She had threatened Mohammed and provoked aggression.

How? By questioning his actions. Yes, that’s what Mohammed had said. To the staff manager of course. The female colleague stands as if hit by lighting. She doesn’t weigh half as much as Mohammed, she would be mad to wake up aggression by somebody who could wipe her off the map, Mohammed is also a kickboxer, she is not that crazy! She is left with her feeling of powerlessness. Not Mohammed. In this conflict she is getting picked on.

Her complaint about Mohammed’s behavior was not taken seriously anywhere. It should be, since Mohammed discriminates against women in the workplace, he is being accused by female colleagues of sexual intimidation, and above all he doesn’t offer help to a colleague who is being assaulted by the target group. All for the simple reason that women shouldn’t be doing this work, because they are unacceptable for Mohammed and the target group, we must understand that, end of story.

Nobody confronts Mohammed about this utterly wrong attitude towards women. Worse still: the Antwerp authorities assume that by employing Mohammed they have “easier access” to the target group. In fact, the effect is usually the opposite. Mohammed supports the target group, shares a wrong attitude and doesn’t think of doing anything differently.

Because nobody has the courage to approach Mohammed about behavior that would be unacceptable in any other civil servant, we make no progress. Polarization and segregation increase and within a welfare system that employs thousands of social workers we are unable to achieve a change of attitude, which respects everybody regardless of origin, sex or belief.


If the politicians procrastinate any longer, there will soon be huge protest marches in Brussels by everybody who has had enough. Because these disparities disrupt society: not skin color, but the behavior of target groups is why people are being excluded at work, from discos and swimming pools. It is time for everyone who has had enough to get together, in everybody’s interest.

Source URL:

The Price of Immigration

The Price of Immigration

Created 2007-08-22 16:33

A quote from The Daily Mail, 22 August 2007

Benefit claims by Eastern Europeans [in Britain] have almost trebled in the past year, official figures show. The cost of the payouts – to almost 112,000 migrants – is put at £125million a year. The Home Office figures mean that one in six of an estimated 683,000 Eastern European incomers is living off the state to some extent. A year ago, only 42,620 were claiming benefits. […]

Once a migrant has been working here for 12 months, they are entitled to the same level of support as any British citizen. Many Poles are drawn by generous handouts for parents who, in some cases, can claim benefits for children who remain in their homeland.

A quote from The Daily Telegraph, 22 August 2007

In the second quarter of this year, the number of asylum applicants removed because they were not considered legitimate refugees declined by more than a third compared to the same period last year. There were 3,280 deported compared with 5,260 in the same period last year – and many of those went voluntarily with financial help.

It means that a ”priority” Government target to remove more failed asylum seekers than there are new applicants has been missed. The Home Office blamed the fall on the diversion of officials to the deportation of foreign criminals rather than would-be refugees.

However, recent figures showed that just one fifth of the 1,000 foreign national prisoners who were released without being considered for deportation have been thrown out of the country.

A quote from the leader of The Times, 22 August 2007

Only last month Gordon Brown insisted that all foreign criminals “will be deported”. Yet under EU law, the Government has known for three years that it has no such powers. […] As the Home Office solicitor complained at the hearing, so long as the criminal has lived in this country for five years or more – whether or not at Her Majesty’s Pleasure – Britain “could never deport a lifer who had been released from prison and was an EU citizen”.

Source URL:

Drunk driver’s immigration status not “irrelevant” to grieving mother

The Coming Urban Terror

Unholy Bedfellows

Unholy Bedfellows

By John Perazzo | 8/21/2007

It sounds so nice, so brimming with hope and cheer: “Christians will join with more than 35,000 Muslims for fellowship and conversation.” Thus says the National Council of Churches’ (NCC) announcement that its Interfaith Relations office will sponsor an Ecumenical Study Seminar for “reflecting and learning together” at the 44th annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which will be held in Rosemont, Illinois at the end of August.

You may reasonably ask, of course, exactly what ISNA is. Could it possibly be, as the foregoing announcement seems to imply, a group of genuinely moderate Muslims that finally has stepped forward to collaborate with a Christian organization in a spirit of mutual acceptance and respect?

Not on your life.

Established in 1963 by the by the Saudi-funded Muslim Students’ Association of the U.S. and Canada, ISNA calls itself the largest Muslim organization on the continent. Its annual convention draws more attendees — consistently over 30,000 — than any other Islamic gathering in the Western Hemisphere.

Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz describes ISNA as “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes into the United States.” The organization’s raison d’etre, he explains, is to provide Wahhabi theological indoctrination materials to a large percentage of the mosques in North America. (Wahhabism, which emerged in 18-century Saudi Arabia, has been described by one Somali journalist as “the austere and closed school of thought” that “sows hatred and rancor even among Moslems,” and as “the sect that produced 15 of the 19 suicide bombers of Sept. 11.”)

Many American mosques were recently built with Saudi money and are required, by their Saudi benefactors, to strictly follow the dictates of Wahhabi imams — an edict that affects the tone and content of the sermons given in the mosques, the selection of publications available in mosque libraries and bookshops, and the policies governing how dissenters from congregations should be treated. Through its affiliate, the North American Islamic Trust — a Saudi government-backed organization created to fund Islamist enterprises in North America — ISNA reportedly holds the mortgages on 50 to 80 percent of all mosques in the U.S. and Canada. Thus it can freely exercise ultimate authority over these houses of worship.

According to Sufi leader Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani’s testimony before a State Department Open Forum on January 7, 1999, extremists have taken over “more than 80 percent of the mosques in the United States … This means that the ideology of extremism has been spread to 80 percent of the Muslim population, mostly the youth and the new generation.” Kabbani based his statement on his personal investigation of 114 American mosques. “Ninety of them,” he said, “were mostly exposed, and I say exposed, to extreme or radical ideology, based on their speeches, books and board members.” This is largely due to the efforts of ISNA.

According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation”; “convenes annual conferences where Islamist militants have been given a platform to incite violence and promote hatred” (for instance, al Qaeda supporter and PLO official Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi was invited to speak at an ISNA conference); has held fundraisers for terrorists (after Hamas leader Mousa Marzook was arrested and eventually deported in 1997, ISNA raised money for his defense); has condemned the U.S. government’s post-9/11 seizure of Hamas’ and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s financial assets; and publishes a bi-monthly magazine, Islamic Horizons, that “often champions militant Islamist doctrine.” Adds Emerson: “I think ISNA has been an umbrella, also a promoter of groups that have been involved in terrorism. I am not going to accuse the ISNA of being directly involved in terrorism. I will say ISNA has sponsored extremists, racists, people who call for Jihad against the United States.”

WTHR, an Indianapolis television station located close to ISNA’s Plainfield, Indiana headquarters, recently said it had found “about a dozen charities, organizations and individuals under federal scrutiny for possible ties to terrorism that are in some way linked to ISNA.”

In December 2003, U.S. Senators Charles Grassley and Max Baucus of the Senate Committee on Finance listed ISNA as one of 25 American Muslim organizations that “finance terrorism and perpetuate violence.” ISNA is known to have permitted the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (and a number of other Islamic charities with terror connections) to set up booths at its conventions, and in some cases has helped raise money for them.

Upon learning of the arrest of Sami Al-Arian, the University of South Florida computer science professor who was a leading figure in the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad, ISNA issued a statement criticizing the U.S. government for its prosecution of Al-Arian.

ISNA was a signatory to a February 20, 2002 document, composed by C. Clark Kissinger’s revolutionary communist organization Refuse & Resist, condemning military tribunals and the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations. In ISNA’s estimation, the Patriot Act constitutes an assault on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans and ought to be repealed.

ISNA endorses the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride Coalition, which seeks to secure amnesty and civil liberties protections for illegal aliens, and policy reforms that diminish or eliminate restrictions on future immigration.

ISNA chose not to endorse or participate in the May 14, 2005 “Free Muslims March Against Terror,” an event whose purpose was to “send a message to the terrorists and extremists that their days are numbered … [and to send] a message to the people of the Middle East, the Muslim world and all people who seek freedom, democracy and peaceful coexistence that we support them.”

Among ISNA’s more notable members and affiliates are the following:

  • Former ISNA President Mohammed Nur Abdullah, who immigrated to the U.S. from Sudan in 1978, is a member of the Sharia Scholars Association of North America. Sharia is a brutally harsh system of strictly enforced Islamic law.
  • In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, former ISNA President Muzammil Siddiqi appeared as a goodwill ambassador at an official ceremony at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. But nearly a year earlier (on October 28, 2000), Siddiqi had publicly stated: “America has to learn, if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come. Please, all Americans. Do you remember that? If you continue doing injustice, and tolerate injustice, the wrath of God will come.”
  • Former ISNA Vice President Siraj Wahhaj was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as a possible co-conspirator to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and testified as a character witness for convicted terror mastermind Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh imprisoned for his role in plotting the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. According to, in a 1991 speech before the Islamic Association of North Texas, Wahhaj characterized Operation Desert Storm as “one of the most diabolical plots ever in the annals of history” and predicted America’s imminent demise unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.”
  • In a WorldNetDaily report detailing how certain Muslim group leaders are hoping that “the U.S. Constitution will one day be replaced by Koranic law,” ISNA board member and Director Ihsan Bagby, an Islamic fundamentalist, is quoted as saying: “Ultimately we [Muslims] can never be full citizens of this country [the U.S.], because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.”
  • In 1982 Abdurahman Alamoudi (who is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence) founded the Islamic Society of Boston under ISNA’s tax-exempt umbrella. Alamoudi is a self-professed supporter of both Hamas and Hezbollah; he has defended the terrorist leader Omar Abdel Rahman of the Islamic Group; he lamented that no Americans had died during al Qaeda’s 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya; and he recommended that more operations be conducted like the 1994 Hezbollah bombing of the Argentine Jewish Mutual Aid Association cultural center in Buenos Aires, in which 85 people died.

Remarkable though it may seem, the objectives and worldviews of ISNA and its leading luminaries are entirely compatible with those of the National Council of Churches and its hierarchy. Consider, for example, that one of the leaders of the upcoming Ecumenical Study Seminar at ISNA’s August conference will be the Rev. Dr. Shanta Premawardhana, NCC’s Associate General Secretary for Interfaith Relations. When a Danish newspaper in early 2006 printed a series of cartoons that lampooned the Islamic prophet Mohammad, Premawardhana wrote that the publication of the cartoons was “a provocation” implying that “every Muslim is a potential terrorist”; that the resulting Muslim protest riots throughout the world “must be considered in the context of a growing Islamophobia in European societies”; and that Muslims were understandably offended by “Western Christians who have enjoyed hegemonic power for over five centuries of European colonial domination [and who] are continuing to enjoy it under the empire-building of a professedly Christian U.S. president.” Premawardhana further referred to the November 2005 Muslim riots that overran many parts of France as a “wide-spread youth revolt” which served as “ample evidence that France was not as tolerant and welcoming a place as it is portrayed to be.”

In short, ISNA and the NCC are a highly compatible pair of bedfellows. Both organizations view Western culture and its institutions as the principal cause of interreligious and international strife. Both are ever-prepared to condemn the West for even the slightest perceived affront to the Islamic world, while turning a blind eye to even the most outrageous endorsements of hatred and intolerance on the part of Muslims. And both will affirm this perspective at ISNA’s national conference later this month.

John Perazzo is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. For more information on his book, click here. E-mail him at

Islamic Jihad and Leftist Dreams

Islamic Jihad and Leftist Dreams

By Robert Spencer | 8/22/2007

Abdullah Al-Muhajir, also known as Jose Padilla, was convicted on Thursday of supporting terrorist activity and, according to Associated Press, “conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas.” At the Leftist website Daily Kos, Padilla was hailed as an “American Martyr to ‘War on Terror,’” and his trial was compared to the witch hysteria: “As was the case during the witch trials of yesteryear, only the socially unpopular, the mentally ill, and the politically dangerous end up at the end of a noose or in yet another bonfire of political vanity.” The barely literate posting went on to complain that the case against Padilla “hinged on one piece of papar [sic]: an application with his fingerprints.” No mention was made of the fact that this “one piece of papar” happened to be an Al-Qaeda application.

The Kos entry was just one small example of the Left’s tendency to see virtually all defensive efforts against the global jihad as manifestations of an encroaching Bushitler police state. Michael Moore said it a few years ago: “There is no terror threat in this country. This is a lie. It’s the biggest lie we have been told.” This has become conventional wisdom on the Left, coalescing neatly with a notable solicitude toward Islamic jihadists: one notorious example was radical feminist lawyer Lynne Stewart who became a water-carrier for the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, now in prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The activities of various members of the “nonviolent” International Solidarity Movement have given rise to numerous questions about its ties to violent jihadists.

So what kind of a world will it be for Leftists who turn a blind eye to the jihad, if the jihadists achieve their objectives? Writing in the entertainment paper TimeOut London in June, TimeOut editor at large Michael Hodges imagined an Islamic London. London under Sharia law, Hodges wrote, would be healthier: “the Muslim act of prayer is designed to keep worshippers fit, their joints supple and, at five times a day, their stomachs trim.” It would be sober: “Forbid alcohol throughout the country, and you’d avoid many of the 22,000 alcohol-related deaths and the £7.3 billion national bill for alcohol-related crime and disorder each year.” It would also be ecologically sound, and Islamic education would raise “general levels of discipline and self-respect among London’s young people.”

Meanwhile, “application of halal (Arabic for ‘permissable’) dietary laws across London would free us at a stroke from our addiction to junk food, and the general adoption of a south Asian diet rich in fruit juice, rice and vegetables with occasional mutton or chicken would have a drastic effect on obesity, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders and associated public health problems.” Religious bigotry would disappear as Jews, Christians, and – probably — Hindus became protected dhimmis under the benevolent rule of Islamic law.

Unfortunately for future dhimmis, however, and for like-minded liberals, Hodges left a few things out of his Islamic Leftist paradise. He didn’t mention that in exchange for the “protection” they would receive from their new Islamic overlords, religious minorities would have to accept a humiliating second-class status that institutionalized their humiliation and denied them equality of rights with Muslims in numerous ways – ensuring that they “feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29). Nor would life be any more comfortable for trendy liberal atheists.

An Islamized country in the West, meanwhile, would be filled with liberal bugaboos: prayer in schools; abortion made illegal (except, most likely, in cases involving the life of the mother); punishments (varyingly draconian) for homosexuals; and even legalized polygamy (Qur’an 4:3) and wife-beating (Qur’an 4:34). Freedom of speech would also probably disappear, at least where discussion of the elements of Islam that incite to violence are concerned — but given their propensity to smear rather than answer their opponents, Leftists probably wouldn’t miss it much.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that a world in which Jose Padilla’s activities continued unhindered, and the jihadists finally succeeded in imposing their will on the rest of us, would hardly be comfortable for liberals. Evidently they believe that there is no real challenge to the West from the Islamic world, and that Christianity (as I detail in my new book Religion of Peace?) represents the real theocracy threat to Western pluralism and non-sectarian government. The multiculturalist anti-Americanism from which this delusion springs may be more lethal to the American Republic in the short run than the jihad itself; but in the long run, the two threats coalesce quite easily.

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?.

Testing Congress: Faith and Face

Testing Congress: Faith and Face

By Michael J. O’Shea

Bored by playing God, Congress now plays admiral and general.

Despite endless complaints about HMOs — not doctors — deciding patients’ fate, Congress repeats the arrogance, rejecting those

  • putting their lives on the line,
  • working daily with Iraqi troops and political leaders,
  • seeing the patient fight back and start to stand on its own.

But Congress knows better. And toys with pulling the plug.
It’s a pathetic cycle. Congress’s DNA is documented in Iraq, yet it denies paternity. It then claims the pregnancy’s too tough and wants to abort. It next protests that lifting a people to life is too hard and opts to abandon them to play law of the jungle to see who will survive and not caring which one does.
Which Iraqi politician has not had a family member murdered? How many governors, mayors, and other officials themselves have been slaughtered? How many days has the Council of Representatives met without mortars shrieking towards their chambers? How many can relax with their families, dine with friends, confer with rivals without fearing this moment may be their last?
Yet Congress, pampered by the Capitol police and fighter pilots overhead if need be, preaches, comforted by press, protesters, “opinion makers” – anyone except those volunteering to fight back.
Congress has introduced resolution after resolution on Iraq – and not one has dealt with helping Iraq’s parliament peer to peer, legislator to legislator. Justice, Agriculture, Defense, Treasury, Commerce, the Fed — even the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce & Industry – have teamed with Iraqi counterparts to help them meet problems head-on.
But not Congress. It sermonizes and doesn’t hear its own hypocrisy: politicians in America pontificating to politicians in Iraq that only a “political” solution will end Iraq’s woes –  and taking not a single political step to help, offering not a scrap of practical political advice.
US troops under fire, Iraqi troops under fire, President Bush under fire, Prime Minister Maliki under fire, Iraqi governors, mayors, representatives under fire — and Congress alone wilts, spooked by blogosphere barbs.
The irony: Congress abhors supposed cover-ups, as for Pat Tillman’s death, yet blasts friendly fire of its own against its only Arab ally fighting side-by-side, collateral damage to that ally and to US recruiting, retention, and morale be damned. Arguing for diplomacy and dialogue, Congress does neither. Yet claims the moral high ground.
In the entire Islamic world, which leaders are struggling more for peace than Iraqis? Want Muslims the opposite of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah? Look to Iraq: there are millions — thousands of them dying.
Troops never abandon their own; Senate leaders do, dumping Joe Lieberman – sterling enough just seven years back to be their Vice President – for a trendier chap. “Semper Fi”? Not Congress. Misfiring on Lieberman, they took out Marine General Pete Pace instead.
If politicians can’t see what’s at stake in Iraq, what can they see?
What heart, what mind would be changed by ditching Iraq? Nothing would change those who’ll march against Afghanistan once they dangle Iraq’s scalp. Al Qaeda would gloat: “We told you about pampered, effeminate Americans,” then sift through thousands eager to hitch to the horse proven strong while America limps home.
Mahmoud Abbas was elected in 2004, Nouri al-Maliki in 2006: who’s done more, been bolder, been ostracized by fellow Arabs, still sought out rival Sunni leaders, fired commanders and chiefs of police, told Coalition soldiers to confront all militias no matter the political or personal price to himself?
Who’s lived under a death sentence from his former leader, personally has grounds for vengeance but will have none of it?

“I will not deal on the basis of tribal revenge with those who killed my family and people. I will go to courts and respect the state and law. That is exactly what we did with Saddam. We gave him every chance to defend himself after he did not give us a chance to say a word when we used to go to execution chambers. I am the person who most believes in national reconciliation.”

Yet Congress demands the US deal patiently with Abbas but not Maliki? Abbas: saddled with Arafat’s aftermath. Maliki: with Saddam’s. Which legacy is more leprous?
General David Petraeus said in April that Maliki is

“someone who wants to lead and serve all Iraqis, but it’s not enough to go to him.”

Then added:

“He’s not the Prime Minister Tony Blair of Iraq. He does not have a parliamentary majority.”

More than its prime minister, Iraq’s Council of Representatives is key to political progress in Iraq. But Congress, its American counterpart, sneers, too superior to stoop to its peer still traumatized by Saddam’s horrors.
Saddam was terror incarnate, scarring Shias and Kurds for life, while Sunnis dread they’ll face Shias’ former fate. Both see Iran sending arms and cash, Syria permitting terrorists to seep across borders, Al Qaeda recruiting bombers to blast children, women, elders, recruits. Yet Chairman Carl Levin proclaims:

“We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves.”

Eighty percent of suicide bombers foreigners, not Iraqis; 60% of US troop deaths from IEDs, many from Iran: and Iraqis must save themselves from themselves. When the doctor can’t even see the disease, how can he write the prescription?
Congress cites Sadr and his supposed dominion over Maliki, never asking: If Sadr’s so powerful and Maliki’s under his thumb, why isn’t Maliki more effective if he’s doing as Sadr demands?
Some say partition Iraq: as if it were Siamese triplets with vital organs in each part and when the patient doesn’t concur. Saw away anyway when the body’s not your own?
Senators cry “civil war,” yet dismiss Al Qaeda’s bombing the Golden Mosque — more sacred to Shias than Senate chambers are to Senate leaders — that unleashed sectarian savagery and cost American lives.
Yet many senators hope to command those troops. Command troops, much less respect, when they can’t command facts?

  • Fact: American troops are better now than before Iraq, over 98% of them alive and well.
  • Fact: Iraqi troops improve by the day.
  • Fact: Iraqi courts are stronger.
  • Fact: local, provincial, and federal Iraqi governments are wrestling with problems Congressmen dodge.
  • Fact: more progress has been made in Iraq in four years than at New York’s Ground Zero in six.

Yet, like children on a trip, politicians keep asking  “Are we there yet?”, “When are we going home?” — deaf to what Operation Iraqi Freedom has been about from the beginning:

“a united Iraq that can govern, defend and sustain itself and is an ally in the war on terror.”

It’s never been a war against Iraq: it’s always been a war with Iraq to destroy Islamic terrorists. If conquest had been the goal, Iraq could have been crushed in weeks if not days. Statesmen know the difference: hustlers don’t.
George Bush said from the start: We’ll leave. Al Qaeda said: We won’t. Maliki said since taking over: Let us take charge. American commanders say: They’ve got fight and fight better, but need time to win on their own.
Commander after commander says Al Qaeda is like no other enemy they’re ever known: ruthless, cunning, relentless, resourceful, determined, and with tools no other enemy has ever had – satellite TV, Internet, cell phones. We have precision-guided weapons: they have precision-targeted media  And use them devastatingly, especially in the US.
If Al Qaeda is a match for the US, what chance would Iraqis have alone?
Al Qaeda has another advantage: influence in Congress more than any commander. It attacks, Congress cries, it explodes, Congress cowers, it dictates, Congress bows.
It is men of faith – Lieberman the Jew, Bush the Christian  – who offer hope to Islam. It is warriors of the West who offer peace to the Middle East.
Faith will win in Iraq. Saving face will not.