January 09, 2006

Zarqawi: Jihad Won’t End Until Sharia Law is Imposed Everywhere on Earth

Anyone who thinks Islamofascist attacks on women and children would stop if the U.S. got out of Iraq or if Israel disappeared, can learn how wrong they are by listening to Zarqawi:

Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, said in an audio tape put onto the Internet Sunday that rockets had been fired at Israel from Lebanon last month "on the instructions" of the network's overall chief Osama bin Laden.

"The rocket firing at the ancestors of monkeys and pigs from the south of Lebanon was only the start of a blessed in-depth strike against the Zionist enemy (...). All that was on the instructions of the sheikh of the mujahedeen, Osama bin laden, may God preserve him," said the voice attributed to the Jordanian extremist.

..The Iraqi Al-Qaeda leader then laid down two conditions for giving up the jihad.

"First, chase out the invaders from our territory in Palestine, in Iraq and everywhere in Islamic land.

"Second, install sharia (Islamic law) on the entire Earth and spread Islamic justice there (...). The attacks will not cease until after the victory of Islam and the setting up of sharia," he swore.

Zarqawi concluded: "O young Muslims everywhere in the world, and in particular in the neighbouring countries of Iraq and in Yemen, I recommend jihad to you (...). O nation of Islam, America is today drawing its last breath."

Female Libs in particular should note that it is official Al Qaeda policy that terrorist attacks won't end until they themselves are as oppressed as all women currently living under Sharia law in the mid-east.

Update 6-7-06: Upon the death of Zarqawi in June, 2006, Al-Qaeda released an official statement reiterating that their goal is for Islam to be the supreme religion on Earth. See this post for the quote.

MICHAEL LEDEEN: "And, according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year's message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time."

Debunked: Dean’s Nonsensical Statement that Only Repubicans Were Involved in Abramoff Scandal

From NewsMax :

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean denied on Sunday that any Democrats had taken money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, even though several top Dems - including Sen. Hillary Clinton - have already announced they were giving their tainted Abramoff cash to charity.

That little detail didn't faze Dean, however - who insisted with a straight face to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican.

... Last week, Sen. Clinton's office announced that she would be donating $2,000 of her Abramoff jackpot to charity. The Republican National Committee says she took a total of $12,900 in Abramoff-linked cash.

Other Democrats who have pledged to return tainted donations include Sens. Tim Johnson and Barbara Mikulski - as well as leading House Democrat Charles Rangel.

Why should a little thing like the facts interfere with statements made by the Chairman of the DNC?

WaPo Staff Writer Alleges Conservatives Try to Bury Abramoff Story—Then is Forced to Retract

Liberall MSM likes to bury stories that don't support its views (here's one particularly egregious example). It's not surprising that  MSM would like to accuse Conservatives of doing the same thing. Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz attempted last Friday to do just that:

But even though Abramoff steered some client cash to Democrats, this is, for the moment, a largely Republican scandal. So do folks on the right unload on Jack and his enablers, or stick to the defensive party talking points?

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that, according to Nexis at least, Fox's Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly uttered not a word about Abramoff this week. And if this was a convicted lobbyist who funneled big bucks to Hillary Clinton, they'd be just as bored by the story.

Kurtz was so wrong, that he had to update his column to admit it:

Update: I stand corrected, O'Reilly hit the topic Wednesday (transcript still not available) and Hannity talked about Abramoff last night. He said he wouldn't defend corrupt Republican politicians -- unlike the Dems who he said kept defending the indefensible Bill Clinton! I knew there was a Clinton angle in there somewhere.

There are, however, a number of conservative prognosticators who have stepped up to the plate, starting with the NYT's David Brooks [.....]  National Review  [.....]  Peggy Noonan [.....]  Power Line's John Hinderaker [.....]  Red State   [.....]

He didn't even mention Newt Gingrich.

As Kurtz has inadvertently highlighted, the Right has a good record of facing the facts. It is the Left that tries to hide the facts from the American people.