Democrat win paves way for Mideast 'chaos'

[Logan13]

Democrat win paves way for Mideast 'chaos'
Lebanese leader fears emboldened Hezbollah will provoke violence
Nov. 14, 2006
Worldnetdaily

The Democrats' midterm election victories last week and the subsequent resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent a message of American weakness to Syria that will likely result in "instability and chaos" in Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East, Lebanon's Druze Leader Walid Jumblatt said in a WND interview today.

Jumblatt is head of Lebanon's Progressive Socialist Party and is widely considered the most prominent anti-Syrian Lebanese politician.

He charged the Democrats' calls for a withdrawal from Iraq and for changes in U.S. Middle East policy in part emboldened the Syrian-backed Hezbollah militia to bolt the Lebanese parliament this past weekend and to threaten street protests that many say could easily turn violent.

Hezbollah's parliamentary departure threw into crisis the composure of the majority anti-Syrian Lebanese government, with some in parliament stating the government is no longer legitimate.

"The Syrians play this game where they have been waiting for the Americans to get weaker in Iraq," said Jumblatt. "Now with the Democrat's win paving the way for an American withdrawal and with Rumsfeld's resignation making a statement, the Syrians believe they have the upper hand in the region to retake Lebanon."

"The Syrians are trying to profit from the circumstances by creating havoc and by using Hezbollah to stage a coup d'etat to get rid of us (the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority)," Jumblatt said.

Yesterday, Lebanon's environment minister, Yacoub Sarraf, loyal to Syrian-backed President Emile Lahoud, resigned shortly before the country's cabinet met to approve U.N. statutes to try the killers of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

Syria has been widely blamed for the February 2005 car bombing in which Hariri and 22 others were killed. Following the assassination, a general Lebanese uprising resulted in the removal of Syrian forces that were present in Lebanon for nearly 30 years.

On Saturday, five Shi'ite Muslim ministers from Hezbollah and its ally, the Amal movement, resigned over the collapse of talks on their demands for effective veto power in the Lebanese government. Hezbollah had demanded one third of the cabinet's 24 seats, prompting some ministers to accuse the militia of seeking veto rights to protect Syria from prosecution in the Hariri affair.

If two more cabinet minister resign, the Lebanese government will fall.

Already, pro-Syrian President Lahoud said Hezbollah's departure has made the parliament irrelevant.

"The government has lost its legitimacy following the ministers' resignations, and any decision it makes will be considered unconstitutional," Lahoud said prior to yesterday's cabinet meeting on the Hariri tribunal.

Also yesterday Hezbollah ministers said they would stage "peaceful" street protests as part of a campaign to press demands for better representation in government for its allies, especially the Christian opposition leader, Michel Aoun.

Lebanese leaders, including Jumblatt, fear Hezbollah protests could turn violent.

The United States and Israel has accused Syria of arming Hezbollah with rockets and advanced weaponry.

"There is no question these protests can foment violence and instability," said Jumblatt, who accused Syria of orchestrating the Hezbollah ministers' resignations.

"This could not have happened without Syria's backing," Jumblatt said.

He said Syria was taking advantage of the "changes in attitude" in the U.S., where many see the Democrats' victory and Rumsfeld's resignation as setting the stage for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

Jumblatt said President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was "the right thing to do," but stressed an early evacuation would send the wrong signals to Syria and Iran, and could result in regional instability.

'Vote Democrat'

Jumblatt's statements follow a series of WND exclusive interviews just prior to last week's midterm elections in which prominent Middle East terrorist leaders said they hoped Americans would sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, the terrorists explained, that would ensure victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WND an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired." They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND last month.

"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 was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

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."

Abu A**ullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu A**ullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department.

"They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman.

The terror leaders spoke as the debate regarding the future of America's war in Iraq became the central theme of last week's elections, with most Democrats urging a timetable for withdrawal and Republicans mostly advocating staying the course in Iraq.

Terrorist laughs at Pelosi's comments

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."

Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."

Hamas' Abu A**ullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."

"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," A**ullah said.

[biglouie250]

dude its the same right wing source on all your threads....worldnetdaily. its as reputable as al franken.

[singern]

dude its the same right wing source on all your threads....worldnetdaily. its as reputable as al franken.

I read the same news article on a number of media sources including AlJezeera, various Lebanese news groups and cnn. The story is as real as the danger.

[RA]

dude its the same right wing source on all your threads....worldnetdaily. its as reputable as al franken.

It doesnt matter where you go all the news stories are skewed one way or another. I was really pissed when I heard on the news yesterday that they were running a story that the Iraq people want us to stay. Until the hypocrats were elected all I heard was-They hate us they hate us they hate us....

[Logan13]

dude its the same right wing source on all your threads....worldnetdaily. its as reputable as al franken.

These stories come from Reuters and AP, only the editorial stuff is derived from worldnetdaily.....

[Phreak101]

So if it didn't come from a right wing source, Syria and Hez would NOT be happy that the dems took office and would NOT be trying to upheave Lebanon?

[mcpeepants]

On foreign policy, the dems and repubs are pretty close and there major differences are comestic ie dems support are multilateral approach while repubs a unilateral. the democratic party and republicans largely supported Israel's war in Lebanon and policy of in Palestine. Continue voting to spend money in Iraq and Afghanistan. So the people making those quotes are deluding themselves if they think there is much foreign policy difference between dems and party.

[Logan13]

On foreign policy, the dems and repubs are pretty close and there major differences are comestic ie dems support are multilateral approach while repubs a unilateral. the democratic party and republicans largely supported Israel's war in Lebanon and policy of in Palestine. Continue voting to spend money in Iraq and Afghanistan. So the people making those quotes are deluding themselves if they think there is much foreign policy difference between dems and party.

Perhaps, but the difference between unilateral and multilateral is huge. I would not classify my foreign policy as unilateral, but I will be damned if I am about to let some other country decide what is good for my country.

[RA]

On foreign policy, the dems and repubs are pretty close and there major differences are comestic ie dems support are multilateral approach while repubs a unilateral. the democratic party and republicans largely supported Israel's war in Lebanon and policy of in Palestine. Continue voting to spend money in Iraq and Afghanistan. So the people making those quotes are deluding themselves if they think there is much foreign policy difference between dems and party.

Yeah basically the dems "multilateral" approach is they talk tough and when it comes time to do something the rest of the world says shut up and they do.

Cmon-huge difference between the two.

[eliteforce]

dem win paves way for chaos-as if the middle east is not already in chaos..so the hell what if "terrorists" are happy that people are elected that will end the oppresion that they fight against..occupying a country and floating a puppet regime is imperialist oppresion, doesn't matter if the "saddamist" are also oppresors..better them than the United States

[Logan13]

dem win paves way for chaos-as if the middle east is not already in chaos..so the hell what if "terrorists" are happy that people are elected that will end the oppresion that they fight against..occupying a country and floating a puppet regime is imperialist oppresion, doesn't matter if the "saddamist" are also oppresors..better them than the United States

Did you feel that breeze? It was the point of the article........
WHY do the terrorists prefer that the Dems are in power? Is it because they want gay marriage too?

[mcpeepants]

Perhaps, but the difference between unilateral and multilateral is huge. I would not classify my foreign policy as unilateral, but I will be damned if I am about to let some other country decide what is good for my country.

a lot of democrats politicians criticize the war because Bush didn't put in the troops and because we went in "alone." That's not criticizing the validity off the war. I remember Kerry repeatedly saying "we shouldn't never have went to war without having a plan to maintain the peace" or something like that. plus the fact that many democratic politicians supported the bombing of Serbia and Iraq in the late 90s when Clinton was doing it.

[Logan13]

a lot of democrats politicians criticize the war because Bush didn't put in the troops and because we went in "alone." That's not criticizing the validity off the war. I remember Kerry repeatedly saying "we shouldn't never have went to war without having a plan to maintain the piece" or something like that. plus the fact that many democratic politicians supported the bombing of Serbia and Iraq in the late 90s when Clinton was doing it.

The point is, Kerry said this after-the-fact. It is easy to spew "should-of's" afterwards, it was really no revelation.

[mcpeepants]

The point is, Kerry said this after-the-fact. It is easy to spew "should-of's" afterwards, it was really no revelation.

My point is that a lot of democratic politicians, not democratic base, are mainly critically of the war because we're doing bad. There not really questioning the validity.

[Logan13]

My point is that a lot of democratic politicians, not democratic base, are mainly critically of the war because we're doing bad. There not really questioning the validity.

True, as are moderate Rebublicans. If soldiers were not dying, Bush would not be getting such bad press on it. But soldiers not dying in war is unheard of.

[Phreak101]

My point is that a lot of democratic politicians, not democratic base, are mainly critically of the war because we're doing bad. There not really questioning the validity.

Anyone can be critical, how about a solution? And no, withdrawl is not a solution, its the pansy way out and will damage both the US's image and the situation in the middle east.

[mcpeepants]

Anyone can be critical, how about a solution? And no, withdrawl is not a solution, its the pansy way out and will damage both the US's image and the situation in the middle east.

Withdrawal is a solution. Too much pride is not a reason to not withdraw. Maybe the government will learn something from our stained image and correct its policy.

[Phreak101]

Withdrawal is a solution. Too much pride is not a reason to not withdraw. Maybe the government will learn something from our stained image and correct its policy.

According to Gen Tommy Franks, it's not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/.../congress_iraq

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress Wednesday against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, putting him at odds with resurgent Democrats pressing President Bush to start pulling out of the violence-torn country.

[Logan13]

Withdrawal is a solution. Too much pride is not a reason to not withdraw. Maybe the government will learn something from our stained image and correct its policy.

I fear that you just do not see the big picture..........

[mcpeepants]

According to Gen Tommy Franks, it's not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/.../congress_iraq

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress Wednesday against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, putting him at odds with resurgent Democrats pressing President Bush to start pulling out of the violence-torn country.

Tommy Franks was one of the generals the lead the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Withdrawing would problem hurt his ego. The presence of US and foreign troops is the source of the reason for the insurgency and probably heighting the shia-sunni conflict. Delaying troop withdrawal has our soldier being left as target during a shia-sunni civil conflict. The longer we take to withdraw, the more Iraqis and troops will be killed.

[mcpeepants]

I fear that you just do not see the big picture..........

What big presence. our presence is the major source of the problem. let's fix that by withdrawing. the Iraq government will never be legitiment if the only reason there in power is because of foreign troops.

[Phreak101]

What big presence. our presence is the major source of the problem. let's fix that by withdrawing. the Iraq government will never be legitiment if the only reason there in power is because of foreign troops.

You're right, we need to leave before the Islamofascists can establish rule with a puppet government. That'll be much better than a self-sustaining democracy.

[Phreak101]

Tommy Franks was one of the generals the lead the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Withdrawing would problem hurt his ego. The presence of US and foreign troops is the source of the reason for the insurgency and probably heighting the shia-sunni conflict. Delaying troop withdrawal has our soldier being left as target during a shia-sunni civil conflict. The longer we take to withdraw, the more Iraqis and troops will be killed.

My mistake, it wasn't Tommy Franks. It was Gen John somethin or other, check the article...

[Logan13]

What big presence. our presence is the major source of the problem. let's fix that by withdrawing. the Iraq government will never be legitiment if the only reason there in power is because of foreign troops.

big picture, not big presence.

[mcpeepants]

You're right, we need to leave before the Islamofascists can establish rule with a puppet government. That'll be much better than a self-sustaining democracy.

Iraq was secular before we invaded and Saddam would haved tortured and killed any wahhabist in Iraq because they hated him and were a threat. The Iraq governments is already a puppet. "Islamofascists" still using empty propaganda. The quotes below should be enlightening:

George Orwell said "fascism [is] nothing more than an insult that various groups use against their political opponents"

"McBain to Base, we're under attacked by a bunch of commie-nazis"
-McBain (the Simpsons

[mcpeepants]

big picture, not big presence.

My bad. But what big picture?

[mcpeepants]

My mistake, it wasn't Tommy Franks. It was Gen John somethin or other, check the article...

General John Abizaid was also invloved in the invasion and took over command after General Franks. They both have there pride at stake if they withdraw. And Abizaid is still active general in the military. If he doesn't says what the Bush administration wants to here, well that's the end of his career.

[RA]

Tommy Franks was one of the generals the lead the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Withdrawing would problem hurt his ego. The presence of US and foreign troops is the source of the reason for the insurgency and probably heighting the shia-sunni conflict. Delaying troop withdrawal has our soldier being left as target during a shia-sunni civil conflict. The longer we take to withdraw, the more Iraqis and troops will be killed.

What do you think would happen if we left

[Snrf]

Yeah dems win and it paves way for chaos.

INVADING IRAQ PAVED THE WAY FOR CHAOS YOU HALFWIT

[Logan13]

Yeah dems win and it paves way for chaos.

INVADING IRAQ PAVED THE WAY FOR CHAOS YOU HALFWIT

CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT?

[RA]

We can have a civil discussion without this

Yeah dems win and it paves way for chaos.

INVADING IRAQ PAVED THE WAY FOR CHAOS YOU HALFWIT

[Logan13]

We can have a civil discussion without this

Just another 21YO kool-aid drinker........

[Phreak101]

Yeah dems win and it paves way for chaos.

INVADING IRAQ PAVED THE WAY FOR CHAOS YOU HALFWIT

You name call, spew opinion, and contribute no factual evidence to every post you make in here. Go away