The Coming Impeachment

The Coming Impeachment
By Rocco DiPippo | October 19, 2006

A plan is in place to censure and impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Orchestrated and organized by the radical Left and Congressman John Conyers, Jr., this plan is ready to go should the Democratic Party take control of the House of Representatives in November.

The plan is the ultimate manifestation of left-wing hatred for George W. Bush rooted in the contentious election of 2000. Since failing to defeat Bush in 2004, the Left has focused its efforts on destroying his presidency by assembling a list of charges aimed at impeaching him.


Impeachment plans began seriously coalescing in 2005, after the NY Times published classified aspects of the NSA surveillance program. In mid- December of that year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, asked a group of presidential scholars whether President George W. Bush had committed an impeachable offense when he authorized the NSA foreign surveillance program. John Dean, the long-time Bush critic of Watergate fame provided Boxer with the answer she and most other Democrats were looking for: “Bush is the first president to admit an impeachable offense,” he said.


Around the same time, Senator John Kerry, D-MA, told a gathering of 100 Democrats that, should they capture the House in 2006, there would be a “solid case” for impeachment based on President Bush’s “misleading” the American public over prewar intelligence. Kerry was picking up where another prominent Democrat had, on November 1, 2005, left off. On that day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called a rare closed Senate session with other Democrats to look into the “misinformation and disinformation” used by the Bush administration to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom.


Boxer and Kerry weren’t the only prominent Democrats discussing the possibility of impeachment during 2005. Such matters were also being discussed by Diane Feinstein, Carl Levin and Ron Wyden, who, along with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and left-leaning Republicans Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe, called for both Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committee investigations into the NSA wiretaps. And on December 20, 2005, Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, underscored those calls, saying:


I look forward to further inquiry in the House and Senate on these matters. The American people deserve the truth. We must gather the facts and determine once and for all whether the law was violated. There is no question that the U.S. Congress has impeached presidents for lesser offenses.


More recently, Rep. Brad Miller, D-GA, said, “The Democrats on the House Science Committee are collecting stories of the intimidation or censoring of scientists. We’re building a case for hearings by the Committee, which may be unrealistic to expect under the current majority, or to be ready for hearings next year if Democrats gain the majority in November.” [Emphasis added.] Miller was making that threat in relation to accusations by leftists and Democrats that Bush was silencing those concerned about global warming.


And then there are the constant calls by congressional Democrats, led by Senator Carl Levin, D-MI, to investigate the treatment of terrorist prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay and other locations. But most telling of all was Senator Harry Reid’s November 2005 attempt to begin the “Phase II“ investigation into the Bush administration’s use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War. Reid said Congress must subpoena administration officials and documents in order to determine how Bush built his case for war.


To some observers, the Democrats’ endless calls for investigations might appear to be simply a dead-end continuation of the 2000 election – heavy on anti-Bush vitriol and posturing, light on concrete action. And such observers might have been right, if not for the fact that a bill, H.R.635, aimed at investigating articles of impeachment, was submitted to Congress on Dec.18, 2005. The submission of that bill by John Conyers Jr. was, first and foremost, a legislative victory for the radical Left and its sugar daddy, Shadow Party leader George Soros, who for all practical purposes guides the anti-U.S., terrorist-sympathizing agendas of the Democratic Party by funding groups that push far-Left candidates and threaten the careers of existing Democratic Party members who do not tow the radical Left line.


Conyers’s H.R. 635 involves creating “a select committee to investigate the Administration’s intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.”

 Justifying the submittal of that bill, Conyers said, “There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power.” And he was right, for since the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, radical left-wing groups had been calling for Bush’s impeachment– and organizing petition drives to pressure legislators to that end.  

The committed activists Conyers spoke of include:



But the most committed and influential of those pro-impeachment groups, and the ones that gathered most of the signatures that Conyers uses as his justification for H.R.635, are AfterDowningStreet and ImpeachPAC. Both are directed by a rising star of the radical Left, David Swanson.

 David Swanson was failed presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich’s press secretary. He is also one of the principal organizers of the AfterDowningStreetCensureBush coalition and the director of MeetWithCindy and KatrinaMarch. A Progressive Democrats of America board member, Swanson also directs and has beaten the pro-impeachment drum for the Huffington Post. His ImpeachPAC website is a high-traffic clearinghouse for the impeach-Bush movement. Its stated purpose is “electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney.” ImpeachPAC has so far gathered well over 500,000 pro-impeachment signatures. Rep. Conyers cites those signatures, and others, as a major reason for filing H.R. 635 and its related bills: H.R. 636, which calls for censuring President Bush and H.R. 637, a bill calling for the censure of Vice President Cheney. During the time of leftist hysteria over the discredited Downing Street Memo, on June 16, 2005, Conyers delivered those and other impeachment related petitions to the White House gate. He had just finished conducting farcical impeachment ”hearings”  in the basement of the Capitol. One of the star ”witnesses” giving ”testimony” at those ”hearings” was Cindy Sheehan. As he was delivering the petitions,  Conyers was surrounded by a sympathetic crowd screaming anti-white, racial slurs.  

Initially, H.R. 635 had 19 cosponsors, but due to an intense lobbying effort by David Swanson, MoveOn and a host of other radical Left “netroots” groups, that number has swollen to 37. Cosponsors now include prominent legislators Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX; Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA; Rep. Jim McDermott, D-WA; Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY; and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-IL.


The bill’s most recent cosponsor is Rep. Hilda L. Solis, D-CA, who signed on to the measure on May 3, 2006. But then, less than two weeks later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in an effort to deny the Republicans a potent election issue, announced, should Democrats win the House in 2006, impeachment was “off the table.” Her statement was a warning to fellow Democrats against further cosponsorship of Conyer’s bills. Since that warning, cosponsorship of H.R.635 has died out.


Although Pelosi said impeachment was “off the table,” she also said that a Democratic-controlled House would “launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters.” [Emphasis added.] When asked if those “other matters” would be related to impeachment she said, “You never know where it [investigation] leads to.”


Should Democrats gain control of Congress in November, Pelosi’s politically expedient, ban on cosponsoring Conyer’s bills will be lifted, and Democrats will rush to endorse them. Those bills (concerning “other matters”), will advance through Congress, since 72 congressmen, overwhelmingly Democrats, officially supported two recent lawsuits brought by the Legal Left against Bush: ACLU vs. NSA and CCR vs. Bush.  Both suits allege that the Bush Administration broke the law when it ordered warrantless wiretaps of suspected terrorists and terrorist operatives. Those suits are central to the Left’s drive to impeach George W. Bush, since their outcomes will officially determine whether he did in fact break the law in the NSA matter. Currently, both of them are winding their way through the courts.


Some might be tempted to dismiss the impeachment machinations of John Conyers and the radical Left as little more than fruitless protest by a frustrated, impotent minority against an individual and Administration it hates. After all, legislators often file impractical, non-viable legislation in order to dramatize an issue. But in light of five years’ worth of endless calls by influential Democratic Party politicians and a few left-leaning Republicans to investigate the Bush Administration’s approach to the War on Islamist Terror, H.R. 635-637 must be considered as legislation with a future.


Then there is a detailed impeachment blueprint designed by the Legal Left, and prepared at the direction of John Conyers Jr. called “The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance.”


The Constitution in Crisis (CIC) is a 354-page text detailing charge after charge against the Bush Administration. Those charges are divided into two general categories: crimes committed during the planning of the Iraq War and during its prosecution, and crimes involving the Bush administration’s use of anti-terror surveillance programs since it began. In summary, the CIC claims that the entire Iraq War undertaking has been a criminal enterprise based on Bush’s desire to avenge Saddam Hussein’s assassination attempt on his father and to fulfill the desires of “neocons.” In other words, Bush and a predominately Jewish cabal committed crimes by misleading Congress and the American people into war. And during that war they illegally spied on and tortured people.


The Constitution in Crisis states that Bush broke numerous U.S. laws. John Conyers and the Center for Constitutional Rights have drawn up a list of laws allegedly violated by the Bush administration that are contained within the Constitution in Crisis‘s pages. They include:


  • Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371)
  • Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. 1001)
  • War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)
  • Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. 1301)
  • Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)
  • National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)
  • Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222)
  • Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2702)
  • Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. 3121)
  • Obstructing Congress (18 U.S.C. 1505)
  • Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. 2302)
  • The Lloyd-LaFollette Act (5 U.S.C. 7211)
  • Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. 1513)
  • Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. 2340-40A)
  • The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441)
  • Material Witness (18 U.S.C. 3144)


All of these are serious charges. Unfounded they may be, but John Conyers would become head of the House Judiciary Committee if the Democrats win in November. And then, not only would he be in position to order investigations of the charges, he would be obligated by his Congressional oath to do just that.


What would the financial cost of such investigations be? In the 1990s, President Clinton was accused of perjury. That charge and the others surrounding it were far less complex than those currently leveled by the Left at Bush and his administration. The investigations of Clinton disrupted the business of Congress, became the focus of the country, and cost American taxpayers at least $80 million. Investigating all of the complex charges leveled by Conyers and the Democrats would grind Congress to a halt – in the middle of a war – and would cost taxpayers billions of dollars.


An intriguing question arises: If Democrats won control of Congress in November, why would they expend enormous political and financial capital on pursuing articles of impeachment against a lame duck President?


Some have speculated that such actions would be political payback for the Clinton impeachment. Others speculate that the Left’s extreme hatred of Bush is reason enough for it to pursue his destruction through impeachment or censure. Though both rationales are plausible, either separately or in conjunction with each other, there is a more important, and therefore more likely, reason for the Democratic Party (should it win Congress) to initiate endless investigations of Bush – its obsession to abandon Iraq and end the War on Islamist Terror.


Facing the serious possibility of a pro-war Republican winning the 2008 presidential election, the Democratic Party has a narrowing window of opportunity to end the Iraq War and realize its Vietnam Dream. The best way to make that dream come true would be to level and investigate charge after charge against the Bush Administration, destroying its legitimacy to have initiated the Iraq War and to have conducted it.


Naturally, an avalanche of anti-Bush, antiwar press would accompany such investigations. Opposition to a war perceived as having been unjustly waged, would skyrocket. The public’s call for an end to the war would justify its de-funding in the eyes of Congress.


The ploy of leveling serious, unfounded charges against one’s political opponents has served the Democratic Party well in the past. It is the ideal one to effect a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-NY, who will head the powerful House Ways and Means Committee upon a Democratic Party victory in November, has hinted that de-funding the Iraq war will be both his and the Democratic Party’s priority. To Rangel, de-funding the war is a moral imperative. “[The Iraq war] is the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country…This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed,” he has said.

To carry out an impeachment of President Bush, the Democrats need to capture both the House and the Senate. But to cause serious disruptions of the body politic during our nation’s time of war, they only need to win the House. With John Conyers, Jr. heading the House Judiciary Committee, Charles B. Rangel heading the House Ways and Means Committee, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and other far-Left Congressmen in control of important House committee chairs, endless investigations of the Bush administration in order to end the Iraq War will almost certainly commence.

ACLU Sues to Allow Tariq Ramadan to Address U.S. Writer’s Conference

ACLU Sues to Allow Tariq Ramadan to Address U.S. Writer’s Conference

March 16, 2006 at 5:58 pm · Filed under Mideast Peace, Politics & Society The NY Times reports that the ACLU is suing to enable Tariq Ramadan to enter the U.S. in order to participate in academic conferences here:

The ACLU asked a federal court in New York for a preliminary order to stop the administration from banning a prominent Swiss Muslim scholar from speaking in the United States. The scholar, Tariq Ramadan, has been barred from this country since his visa was revoked in July 2004, a week before he was scheduled to begin a job at the University of Notre Dame. Administration officials explained the action by citing a USA Patriot Act ban of foreigners who “espouse terrorist activity.”The ACLU site says this about the injunction motion:The ACLU asked a federal court to prevent the Departments of State and Homeland Security from barring a prominent Swiss scholar from entering the country to speak to American audiences.In legal papers filed today, the ACLU said the government wrongfully used a section of the Patriot Act known as the “ideological exclusion” provision to deny a nonimmigrant visa to Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss citizen who now teaches at the University of Oxford. As a result, Ramadan will be unable to speak at events organized by the ACLU’s clients, the American Academy of Religion, the American Association of University Professors and PEN American Center.“The government does not have the authority to exclude foreign scholars at the border simply because it disagrees with their political views,” said ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer, who is lead counsel in this case. “To invest the government with that authority would be to invest it with sweeping power to manipulate and censor debate inside the United States:…The groups say that there is no evidence – and the government has never pointed to any – that Ramadan approves of terrorism. In fact, they say, Ramadan has repeatedly condemned terrorism…The ACLU said Ramadan is not being excluded because of any alleged support of terrorism, but because he is a vocal critic of American policy in the Middle East…The ACLU is asking the court to issue a preliminary ruling to allow Ramadan to attend PEN American Center’s “World Voices” Festival in New York, from April 25 to 30. Read here the full text of the motion and Ramadan’s affidavit supporting it.I hope that the federal judge handling this case sees the merit of the ACLU’s position and allows Ramadan to speak to U.S. audiences. I certainly don’t believe that they will be subjected to pro-terror propaganda in the process. And can we get the Department of Homeland Security out of the political nanny business? Aren’t we adult enough to hear a broad range of ideas and decide which ones are credible ourselves without our government, like the nanny it can sometimes be, covering our ears so we don’t hear the ‘naughty bits?’  

Hezbollah adopts Chavez as hero — Talk about an unholy alliance —

Hezbollah adopts Chavez as hero
(AFP)21 September 2006 BEIRUT – Venezuela’s outspoken President Hugo Chavez, who lashed out at his US counterpart George W. Bush from the podium of the UN General Assembly, has scored a big hit with Lebanon’s Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

“Gracias Chavez,” proclaimed large posters hurriedly put up on Thursday by Hezbollah activists in their Shia stronghold of Beirut’s southern suburbs on the eve of a “victory” rally following the group’s war with Israel.

The portrait, showing Chavez in a red shirt and punching the air with a fist, also calls for Israel “to be taken to court for its crimes” during the 34-day war which ended in mid-August after more than 1,200 people were killed in Lebanon alone.Caracas pulled the Venezuelan charge d’affaires out of Israel in early August to protest its operations inside Lebanon, with Chavez charging that Israel “had lost its mind”.Another poster, next to a road bridge destroyed in an Israeli air raid, shows Chavez and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah and announces the launch of a petition of thanks for the Venezuelan leader.It also hails “our coalition from Gaza to Beirut, to Damascus, to Tehran, and with our brother Chavez”, quoting Nasrallah.Chavez stunned the General Assembly in New York on Wednesday with a speech which branded Bush “the devil” who acted like he ”owned the world”, a day after the US leader spoke from the same podium.The left-wing Venezuelan president, a frequent critic of the US administration, then crossed himself, brought his hands together as if in prayer and looked up to the ceiling of the assembly chamber.Earlier this week, Chavez hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and renewed his support for Tehran’s disputed uranium enrichment programme, which the United States and other Western countries fear would be used for the development of a nuclear bomb. 

Saddam ,Terrorism and the Dems’ Latest Fairytale

Saddam ,Terrorism and the Dems’ Latest Fairytale

One of my favorite writers has a response today in the New York Sun dealing with the twisted intel report the Senate Dems are trying to pawn off pre-election.

Recently the Senate Intelligence Committee published the second phase of its investigation into Iraq. The document has an outrageously lengthy name: “Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings About Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments, Together with Additional Views.” It is a tendentious paper, reflecting Democratic posturing on the eve of the congressional elections. Four Republican senators on the committee complained in their dissent that it was written “with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Washington.” That is an apt characterization of the section dealing with Iraq and terrorism.

The committee chose largely to ignore or discount information showing that Saddam Hussein’s regime was actively involved in terrorism from 1991 to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom for some years before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. One telling example is the statement of Centcom spokesman, General Vincent Brooks, on April 6, 2003, as American forces rushed toward Baghdad. General Brooks described an American raid on Salman Pak, a large Iraqi intelligence compound south of the city, stating: “This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. And we believe that this camp had been used to train these foreign fighters in terror tactics, …one of a number of examples we’ve found where there is training activity happening inside of Iraq. It reinforces the likelihood of links between his regime and external terrorist organizations, clear links with common interests. Some of these fighters came from Sudan, some from Egypt, and some from other places.” Originally included in the report, General Brooks’ statement was removed by an 8-7 vote, with Republican Senator Hagel siding with the Democrats.

The millions of documents captured in Iraq fare little better in this review. Only a small fraction of the documents have been processed, but one American official familiar with them told this author that they nonetheless reveal such extensive Iraqi dealings with terrorists that they justify the war. Journalist Stephen Hayes reported in the Weekly Standard on January 16, that captured documents and photographs reveal that between 1999 and 2002, Saddam’s regime trained over 8,000 “radical Islamic terrorists” at three camps in Iraq, including Salman Pak.(more)”

Read it all. It’s worth your time.

Clarice Feldman   9 19 06

The unholy past of the Muslim cleric demanding the Pope’s execution

The unholy past of the Muslim cleric demanding the Pope’s execution 19.09.06 Add your view Choudary: Refuses to discuss his dissolute youth At 39, Anjem Choudary should be a symbol of success for his peers. Born into the working-class family of a market trader in Welling on the outskirts of London, he has risen – thanks to the opportunities offered by the British education system – to become a qualified lawyer. But it is unlikely his old school will be inviting him to be guest speaker on prize-giving day. Their former pupil is not famous for his elegant oratory in court. Instead, the articulate Mr Choudary preaches hatred and murder in the streets of Britain to the next generation of young, impressionable Muslims. See also… • Police to probe anti-Pope protest This week he stood outside Westminster Cathedral in central London to call for the execution of the Pope as punishment for ‘insulting Islam’. He fulminated against Pope Benedict XVl, adding: “Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment.” It’s a long way from his days as a medical student at Southampton University, where, friends say, he drank, indulged in casual sex, smoked cannabis and even took LSD. He called himself ‘Andy’ and was famed for his ability to drink a pint of cider in a few seconds. One former acquaintance said: “At parties, like the rest of us, he was rarely without a joint. The morning after one party, I can remember him getting all the roaches (butts) from the spliffs we had smoked the night before out of the ashtrays, cutting them up and making a new one out of the leftovers. “He would say he was a Muslim and was proud of his Pakistani heritage, but he did-n’t seem to attend any of the mosques in Southampton, and I only knew of him having white girlfriends. He certainly shared a bed with them.” On one occasion, ‘Andy’ and a friend took LSD together. The friend said: “We took far too much and were hallucinating for 20 hours.” The only sign of religious fervour came in flashes of anger over Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. A friend from that time said: “You didn’t want to get him started on that. He would go on and on about the fatwa and he supported calls for the book to be banned. But he would have a glass of cider in his hand when he was carrying on about it.” Choudary failed his first-year exams, switched from medicine to commercial law and did his final year as a law student at Guildford, from 1990 to 1991, before moving to London. There his legal career stalled briefly and he filled in his time by teaching English as a foreign language in one of the many colleges off Oxford Street. But eventually, he found a position with a firm of solicitors and began completing his qualifications to become a lawyer. His personal life blossomed too. In 1996, aged 29, he married Rubana Akhtar and started a family. The couple, who settled in East London, have a daughter aged eight, and sons aged six and one. Then he met the cleric Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed at a mosque in Woolwich. Bakri, who is now banned from returning to Britain from Lebanon, had formed Al Muhajiroun, committed to the creation of a worldwide Islamic state, and Choudary quickly became a leading light in the group and its successor organisation, Al Ghurabaa. He is no longer a practising solicitor and has left his wife and children to concentrate on his extreme brand of Islam. It was Choudary who organised the Danish Embassy protests over the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed earlier this year, at which demonstrators dressed as suicide bombers and banners proclaimed: ‘Behead Those Who Insult Islam’. He lauded the September 11 hijackers as ‘magnificent martyrs’ and praised Asif Hanif, the British suicide bomber who killed three in Tel Aviv in 2003. After the July 7 atrocities in London, he vowed he would not tell the police if he knew a terror attack was being planned and urged Muslims to defend themselves against perceived attacks by ‘whatever means they have at their disposal’. His shocking pronouncements could be dismissed by some as the rantings of a mind clouded by religious fervour but Choudary has an audience and, at a time of increasing disaffection among young British Muslims, his activities are carefully monitored by Special Branch. A security source said: “He is not seen as premier league because he is so conspicuous. He is seen as an irritant but with a potential to inspire impressionable youngsters to go that one stage further.” Despite his hatred of all things British – he says: “If British means adopting British values, then I don’t think we can adopt British values. I’m a Muslim living in Britain. I have a British passport, but that’s a travel document to me” – he and his family live on state benefits. Rubana is said by friends to claim £1,700 a month in housing benefit and income support while Choudary has also claimed £202 a month in income support. Yesterday, Choudary declined to talk about his past dissolute life, dismissing it as ‘irrelevant’. He said: “I was born a Muslim and I have done my best to be a good Muslim all my life.” And the drugs and alcohol? “That’s not really part of what’s happening in the world today. Anyway, it is all fabricated. It is complete nonsense. “My personal family situation and background is irrelevant to the situation in which we live. I can talk about politics and Islam but I don’t want to talk about my personal life.” He was too busy to answer any further questions. He now belongs to a sect he refuses to name and continues to deny any direct involvement in terrorism. In a recent interview, he said: “Do I know how to make liquid explosives? No, I’m not military-trained. I can make an omelette.” A flippant remark from one whose extremism is so laced with threats of violence.

Venezuela tightens Iran links with trade pacts

By Phil Gunson in Caracas

Published: September 18 2006 18:38 | Last updated: September 18 2006 18:38

Hugo Chávez’s efforts to build an anti-US coalition received a boost on Monday following a visit by Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s president, to Venezuela and the signing of trade agreements between the two countries.

The two presidents are due to arrive in New York on Tuesday, where both are expected to address the UN General Assembly.

Mr Chávez has been lobbying intensively to win a two-year term on the Security Council. Next month’s vote on the seat, which will pit Venezuela against US-backed Guatemala, will be a “thermometer reading of how anti-US the member nations of the UN are”, according to Alberto Garrido, a political analyst.

Mr Chávez, who supports Iran’s nuclear programme, reiterated with Mr Ahmadi-Nejad their opposition to “US imperialism” and their support for a “multipolar” world order, free of the hegemony of what Mr Ahmadi-Nejad called “the tyrants of the world – above all, the Americans”.

The two leaders signed 29 bilateral agreements in areas as diverse as petrochemicals, health, mining and agriculture.

In a series of international tours this year, the Venezuelan leader has secured support for his Security Council seat candidacy from much of Latin America and Africa, along with Russia, China and a large part of the Muslim world.

However, doubts remain as to whether he will obtain the required two-thirds of votes on the first ballot, not least because voting is secret. “Some governments may not be telling the truth,” said a European diplomat, “especially among the small Caribbean nations.”

Failure to win outright could lead to a protracted series of inconclusive votes, and possibly the emergence of a compromise candidate.

Venezuela, along with Cuba and Syria, voted in the International Atomic Energy Authority against the referral of Iran’s nuclear programme to the Security Council this year.

Mr Chávez has also raised the possibility of collaboration between Iran and Venezuela in the nuclear field, and has vowed to stand with both Iran and Cuba under any circumstances. At last week’s meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Havana, he reiterated this stance. “We will accompany Iran as we will accompany Cuba,” he said. “If the United States were to invade Cuba, Venezuelan blood would flow.”

More than the flow of blood, it is the flow of oil that has Washington worried. Between them, Iran and Venezuela produce almost 7m barrels a day, and both have threatened a boycott in the event of US aggression.

■The US on Monday criticised Venezuela and Burma for doing too little to fight the drug trade but decided not to cut off aid to Caracas, a big oil supplier, Reuters reports from Washington.

Venezuela, the world’s fifth largest oil exporter, was given a waiver allowing it to avoid some US aid cuts that would be triggered by the US determination that it “failed demonstrably” to live up to international commitments to fight the drug trade.

The White House also said it remained concerned about Bolivia’s work against drugs, saying it had pursued policies “that have allowed the expansion of coca cultivation and have significantly curtailed eradication”.

Indonesian Islamist Abu Bakar Bashir: ‘It is Not Democracy That We Want, but Allah-cracy!’

Indonesian Islamist Abu Bakar Bashir: ‘It is Not Democracy That We Want, but Allah-cracy!’

The Indonesian Islamist cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, who was released from prison in July 2006 after having been charged with complicity in the Bali terror attacks of 2002, gave an interview to Al-Jazeera in which he outlined his plans for establishing an Islamic state in Indonesia. Bashir attacked democracy and the West, and called on Muslims to wage jihad against the ruling regimes in the Muslim world. The interview appeared on August 21, 2006, on Al-Jazeera’s English-language website.

The following are excerpts from the article: [1]
“We Demand an Islamic State”

“We demand an Islamic state, and not some form of Islamisation of society. We want the state to be Islamic, with Islamic leaders who have the courage and will to implement the shari’a in total. There is no other way…

“We want an Islamic state where Islamic law is not just in the books but enforced, and enforced with determination. There is no space and no room for democratic consultation. The shari’a is set and fixed, so why do we need to discuss it anymore? Just implement it!

“Right now we are drafting our own constitutional amendments for Indonesia, the framework for an Indonesian Islamic state where Islamic laws are enforced. Indonesians must understand that there is no Islamic state without the enforcement of Islamic laws. Otherwise it is just talk and nothing else.”

“Our Leaders Have All Been… Trained to Speak the Way Their Western Bosses Want Them to…”

“…We should not accept the idea that being a radical is a bad thing. Any movement for change will be radical…

“Today the Western powers and media want to domesticate us like sheep, to keep us tame and domesticated. But why are animals domesticated? So that they can be slaughtered in the end!

“That is why they use the label ‘radical’ in the way they do, to keep us scared and to keep us under control. This is true for our leaders, who have all been domesticated and trained to speak the way their Western bosses want them to…

“The West is trying to weaken Islam from outside and inside. They attack our people and invade our countries from outside, and they weaken us from within with ideas like secularism, liberalism and democracy. This is all designed to contaminate our pure Islam.”

“The Jews are Cunning and Cannot Be Trusted”

“There is not a single Muslim leader today who has the courage and commitment to defend Islam and Muslims, they are all in awe of the United States and other Western powers, and are indebted to them… Our Prophet warned that this would be the case in the future, that the Muslim ummat would be great in numbers, but weak in spirit…

“How can Malaysia sign a free trade agreement with America and Japan? Are these not kafir countries? And America today is an enemy of Muslim states and the supporter of Israel. In Islam that makes America a kafirharbi (enemy) state, and we Muslims are obliged to cut off all ties, diplomatic and economic with such an enemy state…

“The Jews are cunning and cannot be trusted, as it states in the Qur’an. At the moment the United States is just being the donkey for Israel, who is riding the USA.

“How can we dialogue for peace in the Arab world as long as Israel exists? Israel cannot dream of having peaceful borders because Israel has no right to exist, no right to be there. That is the land of Palestine, for the Palestinians. How can any Muslim leader say that Israel has the right to safe borders? It should not be there in the first place!…

“There is not a single Islamic state in the world, not even in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are hypocrites and friends of the United States; their leaders are all corrupt and worldly. The closest we ever got to an Islamic state was the Taliban government in Afghanistan, but the Americans destroyed that, with their Western allies…”

“We Need to Go on Jihad Against Our Own Hyprocrite Governments”

“It is the duty for Muslims to oppose their governments when their leaders dialogue with our enemies. It says so in the Quran (Surah 60:9), that those who oppose Islam are our enemies and we must fight against them. So before we dialogue with kafirs, we need to go on jihad against our own hypocrite governments first that are apostates and against Islamic principles…

“Islam is in two parts: the Quran and the Sword.

“The Quran has all the guidelines, rules, norms, laws and punishments we need. The enforcement of the shari’a is the sword we are talking about…”

“If the Prophet Carried a Spear Then… We Can Carry an M-16!”

“Look at the sunna (practice) of the Prophet. When he gave his speeches and sermons he had a spear (tombak) in his hand. Why? This was the symbol of power. His followers knew he was serious, and not simply giving empty talk. He meant what he said and he did what he said he would do.

“Sadly over the centuries Islam grew weak and we forgot that the Prophet carried a spear when he spoke. The spear was replaced with a staff (tongkat) instead, as if Muslims were weak and needed a walking-stick to stand up! We need to go back to this original, strong, robust Islam. Like the Prophet we need to carry the spear (tombak) again. If the Prophet carried a spear, then for us today we can carry an M-16!”

“There is No Democracy in Islam”

“There is no democracy in Islam, so do not try to interpret the Quran and turn Islam into a democracy to suit your needs. God’s law comes first. It is not up to the will of the people to decide what is right and how to live. Rather the will of the people have to be bent to suit the will of God. It is not democracy that we want, but Allah-cracy!

“The principles of Islam cannot be altered and and there is no democracy in Islam or nonsense like ‘democratic Islam’.

“Democracy is shirk [polytheism] and haram [forbidden]. Here we do not compromise. Those who claim to be Muslims and do not support Shariah one hundred percent are all munafik [hypocrites] and kafirs, they are out of Islam. No need to discuss with these people, they are not part of the ummat anymore. There is no need to listen to public opinion: kafirs, apostates, liberals, atheists – they are all non-believers…

“Islam’s victory can only come through dawah [preaching] and jihad, not elections. That’s why Islamic parties are on the wrong path… As long as democracy is their chosen path, the end result is haram. Nothing good can come from that which is haram, is that not the case? So if democracy is haram, then what kind of Islamic state can come from that? Certainly not a pure Islamic state. Elections are quite useless.”

“There Can Be No Islam Without Jihad”

“The struggle for Islam can only come through crisis and confrontation. Islam is here to change the world, not to be changed by the world. So there is bound to be resistance, that is why the West fears us.

“If we accept Western norms like democracy then we can never reach the Allah-cracy I mentioned earlier. Democracy must be replaced by Allah-cracy and this cannot come from elections. Those who oppose us must be educated, that is why dawah is important, to show them that Islam is the only way. But if they still resist, and are willfully stubborn, or if they create obstacles for us, then they must be opposed. In particular all the Muslims who oppose us are apostates (murtad) and they in particular need to be dealt with firmly…

“This is the Islamic view of things. We must never compromise, relent, give up, submit to our kafir enemies. We must always keep to the Islamic path, jihad in the name of shar’ia, and never be apologetic…

“Remember that jihad is what brought Islam to power and built our community. There can be no Islam without jihad….”

[1], August 21, 2006.

A collision course with reality

A collision course with reality

Posted: August 8, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Perception trumps reality … especially for those who are unfamiliar with reality.

For example, take the Israeli-Lebanese mini-war being played out as I write. Whose fault is it? And who are the bad guys?

The liberal media have done a masterful job of confusing the world. Read this to see the truth of “The Media War Against Israel.”

There. The distortion is even worse than you thought, isn’t it?

Just today, my friend Robert Seelye relayed a report from Israel in which a deserted building in Qana was hit by an Israeli bomb at 1 a.m., long after the Israelis had dropped warning leaflets. When the bomb hit, there was a big hue and cry that women and children had been in the place and were killed. Right on cue, here came stretcher-bearers carrying out the dead for the cameras. But someone peeked at the bodies, and they had been dead for days.

Fellow WND columnist Michelle Malkin credits these Muslim theatrics to “the Acting Guild of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.” With her usual eloquence, she sums up, “This ongoing production utilizes the same talented field of Jew-haters and West-haters and flag-burners and machete-wielders who brought you … months of manufactured rage over the Muhammad cartoons, crazed riots in Nigeria over the Miss World pageant, Shariah-approved murders in Somalia of World Cup soccer fans, the fictional Jenin ‘massacre,’ the fable of Muhammad al-Dura, and ululating protests over the corrupting influences of ‘The Satanic Verses,’ Theo Van Gogh, Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonald’s, the sacrilegious Burger King ice cream swirl, Valentine’s Day and Piglet from ‘Winnie the Pooh.'” [Michelle: How could you forget the megaflap of Guantanamo, in which some genius supposedly figured out a way to flush an entire Quran down the toilet?]

When your main audience is a perennially crazed horde of data-deficient martyr wannabes, it’s not hard to persuade them that they are victims of aggression. Every Islamic jihad has been whitewashed into a heroic defense of Muslim lands.

That has been the mindset of most Muslims since … oh, the time of Muhammad. In 638, four centuries before the start of the Crusades, Muslims began conquering Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople. The Crusades were in part an effort to retake the lands and protect the threatened Christian populace.

In 732, the Muslims defended themselves as far north as Tours, France, where they were finally stopped by the outnumbered but valiant forces under Charles “The Hammer” Martel.

In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent defended Turkey – all the way to the gates of Vienna, Austria. In 1683, the Ottoman Turks tried again, but Islamic stupidity reigned, and they managed to blow a 20-1 numerical advantage. Hatred blinds the eye and fries the brain.

Alain Gresh summarizes the problem neatly:

“Put simply, they don’t like us, not because of what we do, but because they reject our love of freedom and because they have been on the losing side for 200 years. Why did Nasser nationalize the Suez Canal Company in 1956? Out of Muslim hatred of the West. What caused the fall of the shah of Iran and the revolution of 1979? Muslim hatred of the West. Why do the Palestinians constantly rise up against the occupation of their lands? Hatred of the West. Iraqi resistance? Hatred of the West. The conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia? Muslims’ refusal to be ruled by infidels. It’s all obvious. And it explains why they hold democracy in such contempt.”

U.S. and U.N. policy rests upon the idea that there’s a vast and healthy majority of Islam out there that’s moderate and peaceful. All we have to do is energize it, and denunciations of jihad violence will rapidly resound from every mosque, while fatwas will be issued on everyone who makes noises like Osama bin Laden. Soon thereafter, democracy will bloom in the Middle East, and the Palestinians will calm down and cheerfully learn to coexist with Israel.

In other words, we are on a collision course with reality.

I applaud every successful attempt to curtail the violence in the Arab and Muslim world. Yet I know that the ultimate solution won’t be found on either the battlefield or the podiums of the U.N. The basic problem we face is a spiritual evil that creates mental darkness and physical violence. The only solution will come when Christians finally get serious, stop playing church, and unite in dedicated prayer and fasting to oppose this evil at its satanic root. Are we up for that?

US outraged as Pakistan frees Taliban fighters

US outraged as Pakistan frees Taliban fighters
By Isambard Wilkinson in Peshawar

(Filed: 15/09/2006)

Pakistan’s credibility as a leading ally in the war on terrorism was called into question last night when it emerged that President Pervez Musharraf’s government had authorised the release from jail of thousands of Taliban fighters caught fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Five years after American-led coalition forces overthrew the Taliban during Operation Enduring Freedom, United States officials have been horrified to discover that thousands of foreign fighters detained by Pakistan after fleeing the battleground in Afghanistan have been quietly released and allowed to return to their home countries.

Pakistani lawyers acting for the militants claim they have freed 2,500 foreigners who were originally held on suspicion of having links to al-Qa’eda or the Taliban over the past four years.


The mass release of the prisoners has provoked a stern rebuke to the Musharraf regime from the American government. “We have repeatedly warned Pakistan over arresting and then releasing suspects,” said a US diplomat in Islamabad. “We are monitoring their response with great concern.”

The Daily Telegraph tracked down and interviewed several former fighters who were part of a batch of eight foreign prisoners released last month. Burhan Ahmad, a 32-year-old Bangladeshi who has an American degree in engineering, admitted helping the Taliban against US-led forces in Afghanistan five years ago.

He was arrested by Pakistani security agents as he passed back over the frontier in 2003. Last month he was released from jail, where he spent three years without facing trial.

Like thousands of other Taliban and al-Qa’eda suspects who have been rounded up in Pakistan, Ahmad is now being fed and sheltered by an Islamic welfare group as he waits while a travel agency that specialises in repatriating jihadis prepares his identity papers and air ticket.

He was handed over to the al-Khidmat Foundation, a welfare organisation run by the hard-line Islamist party Jamaat-i-Islami, by a local court in Peshawar.

“I was arrested on the very same day that I arrived in Pakistan as I crossed from Khost to South Waziristan,” said Ahmad who then spent 28 months in the custody of one of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies before being transferred to a jail where he was imprisoned for three months. “The situation has become too difficult in Afghanistan and so I wanted to go home. I felt I had played my part.”

In the hands of al-Khidmat Ahmad was more concerned with worldly goods than attaining a martyr’s end in jihad. He produced a list of his personal items that he wanted back from the security agency: socks, a laptop, a thermal vest and some money.

His lawyer, Fida Gul, said: “He is no problem. He will go to Bangladesh. He is not a criminal and he has been cleared by the security forces. His arrest was illegal.”

One of those who spoke to this newspaper was a young Tajik who entered Pakistan last year to study, he claimed, at a madrassa in Peshawar. He was shot in the side by Pakistani police as he tried to escape when the madrassa was raided.

A third former prisoner, a 37-year-old Algerian, had come to fight the Russian-backed government in Afghanistan in the early 1990s. He married a Pakistani woman and claimed to have settled down and worked in the honey business when he was arrested last year.

“I am going home to Algeria as I want to take advantage of an amnesty offered by the government,” he said. “I know I will be arrested on arrival and interrogated as this happened to several of my Algerian brothers. But then I will be released as I have done nothing wrong.”

On the question of whether released militants would return to jihad, Hazrat Aman, a field officer of the al-Khidmat Foundation, said: “If they react like that it is a natural phenomenon. Some of these people spent two to three years in jail. Some of them will live peacefully and others will join jihad again.”

More news from the religion of peace

The girl in love who lost her life for a picnic

ONE woman who will not be getting married is Yusra al- Azzam, murdered by self- appointed Hamas religious police for the crime of picnicking on the beach with a man who turned out to be her fiancé.

The 20-year-old was killed in Gaza in April last year after a car full of thugs tried to pull over her vehicle after it left the seashore, and opened fire when it refused to stop.

The killers eventually caught up with her car, beating Ms al-Azzam’s fiancé and his brother. They were later arrested.

Hamas initially denied involvement, but then admitted that the gunmen were members. It quickly disavowed the killing, saying that the gunmen had acted individually.

Honour crimes are common but such random killings are rare, and the death generated much negative publicity.

However, the killers were related to a powerful Gaza clan and were soon released.

With few relying on official courts, the dispute went to traditional religious arbitration and the Mufti of Gaza ordered that the al-Azzams be paid 25,000 Jordanian dinars (£19,000) in “blood money” after judging the death to have been accidental.

He applied the standard yardstick of 4.25kg (150oz) of gold for a dead man and half that for a woman.

In their dilapidated house in Beit Lahiya, Ms al-Azzam’s parents are still bitter but fearful, and are careful to emphasise that the family dispute is closed.

“We are a weak family and cannot act for our rights,” said her father, Jamal, a poor 43-year-old cleaner who complained that while their personal “rights” were taken care of, the Government, then controlled by Fatah, had failed to enforce the public law by jailing the culprits.

Ms al-Azzam’s mother, Suhair, exploded with anger: “We want them to be punished more. But as long as the old men take responsibility for these situations, we can’t do anything.”

Sitting beneath a portrait of his dead daughter on the wall, Mr al-Azzam kept murmuring “it is the will of Allah” as he chose his words carefully, eager not to cause offence to any of the parties.

Also prominent on the wall were portraits of the assassinated Hamas leaders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi.