Printer Friendly
June
Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press! Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary
The Morning Murmur – Friday, June 16, 2006
1. After Zarqawi: They're Losing - New York Post Op-ed
Iraq's government just released the first insider documents captured from
terrorists in the raids surrounding Zarqawi's death. In their
state-of-the-troubled-union message to themselves, al-Qaeda acknowledged
that we were winning big even before we nailed Zarqawi.
2. Text of al-Zarqawi Safe-House Document - Associated Press
The text of a document discovered in terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's
hideout reveals al-Qaeda's strategy to regroup after being weakened by
coalition forces.
3. Senate rejects calls to exit Iraq - Associated Press
Congress plunged into divisive election-year debate on the Iraq war Thursday,
with the Senate soundly rejecting a call to withdraw combat troops by year's
end.
4. House Dems strip Jefferson of panel seat - Associated Press
Add political banishment to the list of problems confronting Rep. William
Jefferson, ensnared in a bribery scandal that has put a snag in the
Democrat's "culture of corruption" message.
5. It's too soon to tell whose number is up - Chicago Sun-Times Op-ed
How quickly things can
change. For months Democrats have been basking in the glow of bad news for
Republicans. There has been giddy speculation by some Democrats about
retaking control of one or both houses of Congress, but a string of events
over the last few weeks has seen the Democrats come crashing back to Earth.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. After Zarqawi: They're Losing - New
York Post Op-ed
By RALPH PETERS
June 16, 2006 -- IRAQ's government just released the first insider documents
captured from terrorists in the raids surrounding Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's
death. The contents will horrify America haters in our media but won't
surprise Post readers:
We're winning.
Yeah, the good guys. Our troops. And the Iraqi army. We're winning. We were
winning big even before we nailed Zarqawi. The terrorists themselves said
so. In their state-of-the-troubled-union message to themselves.
According to al Qaeda in Iraq, critics of "stay the course" need to stick it
where the sun don't shine: One key captured document states that "time is
beginning to be of service to the American forces."
Guess we ought to pull our troops out now. Right, Nancy? Howard? Teddy?
John?
And that's just a fraction of the good news that was plaguing the masters of
terror. Zarqawi's inner circle had concluded that:
* The Iraqi military and security forces had become painfully effective,
paralyzing terrorist efforts in parts of Iraq where they'd previously moved
freely.
* Losses due to U.S. and Iraqi strikes had badly sapped terrorist strength -
and they were having grave difficulty gathering new recruits. Guess not
everybody wants a Saturday-nighter with the virgins of paradise.
* While elements in our own media continued to claim that the terrorists
couldn't be defeated, the terrorists themselves felt that the Iraqi media's
reporting on terrorist atrocities had badly undercut their base of support.
* The terrorists were suffering from the loss of financial resources, as
well as a shortage of weapons - old allies were bailing out on them, while
their dwindling assets were being seized by Coalition and Iraqi-government
forces.
* In the terrorists' view, regional and world opinion had moved behind the
Coalition and the elected Iraqi government.
Desperate, Zarqawi's butchers laid out a program to try to regain the
initiative they'd lost. Here's what the terrorists hoped to do:
* In their own words, "use the media for spreading an effective and creative
image of the resistance." That is, exploit the prejudices of the Western
media, the terrorists' last allies.
* Infiltrate Iraq's army, which was pinning them to the mat (if you can't
beat 'em, join 'em).
* Unify the resistance - which was falling to pieces amid squabbles over
tactics, over turf and even over who was the real enemy.
* Most ambitious, the terrorists hoped to spark a war between the United
States and Iran, to "create a second front" that would take pressure off
them. To that end, they planned to implicate Iran in staged terrorist events
and to provide disinformation about Tehran's having ties to terrorist groups
targeted by the United States.
* Just in case that didn't work, the terrorists also hoped to ignite civil
wars between Sunni and Shia, Americans and Shia, Shia and Shia, Kurds and
Shia - and even between different Sunni factions. A Vietnam-era U.S. officer
was ridiculed for saying, "We had to destroy the village in order to save
it," but al Qaeda is willing to destroy all of Iraq in order to save it for
a fanatical vision.
The internal document portrayed the terrorists as lying on the ropes,
speaking of their "current bleak situation." Their self-evaluation was
wildly at odds with the interpretation of events foisted upon the American
people by left-wing elements in our media and by the leadership of the
Democratic Party. Those who called for us to quit Iraq would have handed a
broken terrorist movement a strategic victory.
For patriotic Americans and freedom lovers everywhere, for the enemies of
terror and the friends of tolerance, for the people of Iraq and of the
United States, the captured terrorist documents contained nothing but great
news - confirmation that we're winning, that terror is being defeated and
that Iraq is on the road to recovery.
As for me, as I wrote this column yesterday afternoon, I pledged to myself
that I was going to pick up The New York Times this morning. The Times has
been reporting terrorist propaganda as Gospel truth for three years. Now I
can't wait to see how the shady Gray Lady spins the truth the terrorists
told each other.
Betcha we'll start hearing that the captured documents are all forgeries -
so a badly burned "mainstream" media can get back to reporting "the truth"
about Haditha, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. In the meantime, our troops will
continue to win this war.
Ralph Peters' new book, "Never Quit the Fight," will be released on July 10.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/after_zarqawi__theyre_losing_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
2. Text of al-Zarqawi Safe-House
Document - Associated Press
Text of a document discovered in terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's
hideout. The document was provided in English by Iraqi National Security
Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie:
The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point
that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq.
Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the
required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have
succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and
have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the
American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the
Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to
defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.
As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the
forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain
economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here
in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and
harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:
1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard,
to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against
the resistance.
2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an
impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of
its elements.
3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in
weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as
harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.
4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral
options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.
5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and
jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and
internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the
resistance's assaults.
6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements
supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their
stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the
occupation.
7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in
order to misinform.
Based on the above points, it became necessary that these matters should be
treated one by one:
1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of
supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest
between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media
for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.
2. To assist some of the people of the resistance to infiltrate the ranks of
the National Guard in order to spy on them for the purpose of weakening the
ranks of the National Guard when necessary, and to be able to use their
modern weapons.
3. To reorganize for recruiting new elements for the resistance.
4. To establish centers and factories to produce and manufacture and improve
on weapons and to produce new ones.
5. To unify the ranks of the resistance, to prevent controversies and
prejudice and to adhere to piety and follow the leadership.
6. To create division and strife between American and other countries and
among the elements disagreeing with it.
7. To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show
it as the enemy of the nation.
In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best
suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American
forces into another war against another country or with another of our enemy
force, that is to try and inflame the situation between American and Iraq or
between America and the Shi'a in general.
Specifically the Sistani Shi'a, since most of the support that the Americans
are getting is from the Sistani Shi'a, then, there is a possibility to
instill differences between them and to weaken the support line between
them; in addition to the losses we can inflict on both parties.
Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the
answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a
delegate has the following benefits:
1. To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the resistance
freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on it.
2. To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shi'a will weaken
and close this front.
3. To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shi'a will cause
the Americans to lose many of their spies.
4. To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shi'a, in a war that will
result in both parties being losers.
5. Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help.
6. To take advantage of some of the Shia elements that will allow the
resistance to move among them.
7. To weaken the media's side which is presenting a tarnished image of the
resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shi'a.
8. To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement.
9. To provide popular support and cooperation by the people.
The resistance fighters have learned from the result and the great benefits
they reaped, when a struggle ensued between the Americans and the Army of
Al-Mahdi.
However, we have to notice that this trouble or this delegated war that must
be ignited can be accomplished through:
1. A war between the Shi'a and the Americans.
2. A war between the Shi'a and the secular population (such as Ayad 'Alawi
and al-Jalabi.)
3. A war between the Shi'a and the Kurds.
4. A war between Ahmad al-Halabi and his people and Ayad 'Alawi and his
people.
5. A war between the group of al-Hakim and the group of al-Sadr.
6. A war between the Shi'a of Iraq and the Sunni of the Arab countries in
the gulf.
7. A war between the Americans and Iraq. We have noticed that the best of
these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because
it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such
as:
1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iraq, who are (30 percent) of the population
and under the Shi'a Rule.
2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their
forces.
3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either
after the fall of Iran or during the battles.
4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its
help.
5. Weakening the Shi'a supply line.
The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against
Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards
Iraq, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in
Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the
Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real
danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:
1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the
American people and attribute them to a Shi'a Iranian side.
2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi'a
Iranian side.
3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is
threatening the west with these weapons.
4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by
planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.
5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist
groups (as termed by the Americans).
6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in
possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the
Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the
west and against western interests.
Let us hope for success and for God's help.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8LJBG0.html
3. Senate rejects calls to exit Iraq -
Associated Press
June 16, 2006
BY LIZ SIDOTI
WASHINGTON -- Congress plunged into divisive election-year debate on the
Iraq war Thursday, with the Senate soundly rejecting a call to withdraw
combat troops by year's end.
In a move Democrats criticized as gamesmanship, Senate Republicans brought
up the withdrawal measure and quickly dispatched it -- for now -- on a 93-6
vote.
The proposal would have allowed ''only forces that are critical to
completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces'' to remain in
Iraq in 2007.
Across Capitol Hill in a daylong House debate, Republicans defended the Iraq
war as a key part of the global fight against terrorism while Democrats
assailed President Bush's war policies and called for a new direction in the
conflict.
WAR OF WORDS
Quotes from congressional debate Thursday on the Iraq war:
''If we were to cut and run the violence in Iraq would certainly increase
... Chaos would result. Bloody civil war would result. Terrorists and rival
militias would tear the country apart.'' --Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
(R-Tenn.)
''The American people understand that you can question President Bush's Iraq
policy and support our troops.'' --House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
''We must stand firm in our commitment to fight terrorism and the evil it
inflicts throughout the world. We must renew our resolve that the actions of
evildoers will not dictate American policy.'' --House Speaker J. Dennis
Hastert (R-Ill.)
''This year -- 2006 -- should be a year of transition in Iraq. And, it is my
expectation that the United States will be able to reduce the American troop
deployment over the ensuing months and transfer the risks and
responsibilities to the duly elected government of Iraq.'' --Rep. Steny
Hoyer (D-Md.)
''When our freedom is challenged, Americans do not run,'' House Speaker J.
Dennis Hastert said in remarks laden with references to the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks.
''This is a war that is a grotesque mistake,'' countered House Democratic
leader Nancy Pelosi of California. She called for a fresh strategy -- ''one
that will make us safer, strengthen our military, and restore our reputation
in the world.''
Republicans moved toward a vote on a resolution to reject any timetable for
withdrawing U.S. forces.
Congress roared into debate on the three-year conflict four months before
midterm elections that will decide the control of both the House and Senate
-- and as Bush was trying to rebuild waning public support for the conflict.
The administration was so determined to get its message out that the
Pentagon distributed a highly unusual 74-page ''debate prep book'' filled
with ready-made answers for criticism of the war.
The president has tried to rally support for the Iraq war in the days since
the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
But as the death toll and price tag of the conflict continue to rise,
opinion polls show voters increasingly frustrated with the war and favoring
Democrats to control
Congress instead of the Republicans who now run the show.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-war16.html#
4. House Dems strip Jefferson of panel
seat - Associated Press
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Add political banishment to the list of problems
confronting Rep. William Jefferson, ensnared in a bribery scandal that
fellow Democrats hope to turn to their election-year advantage.
"Democrats are determined to hold a high ethical standard," the party's
leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, said Thursday night after engineering a 99-58
vote of the rank and file that stripped Jefferson of his seat on the
tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
"This isn't about proof in the court of law. This is about an ethical
standard," Pelosi said. "I wish that the White House would do the same."
Democrats long have accused Republicans of nourishing a "culture of
corruption" in Congress, and signaled their desire to make ethics a key
issue in their drive to win control of the House in the November elections.
The vote came despite a final plea from Jefferson and persistent complaints
from members of the Congressional Black Caucus, which said the Louisianan
was being sanctioned without a rule or a precedent to justify it.
For his part, Jefferson conceded to reporters he faced "serious allegations"
in connection with an investigation that has netted two convictions. The
congressman maintains his innocence and has not been indicted, although the
FBI says it found $90,000 in bribe money several months ago stashed in a
food freezer in his home.
With the action of the Democratic caucus subject to ratification by the full
House, Jefferson publicly left open for the first time that he might be
willing to give up his committee seat voluntarily.
"I don't want to speculate," he said.
Within an hour of the vote, Jefferson disclosed he had offered on Wednesday
to step aside on two conditions. They were that the caucus establish a rule
covering cases like his and that his seat on Ways and Means go temporarily
to a fellow Louisiana Democrat, Rep. Charles Melancon.
Pelosi, who controlled the votes to prevail in a showdown, declined the
offer.
"So it was her decision to expose the rift in this caucus and to move
forward with this unjust action," Jefferson said in a statement.
The vote in a closed-door meeting of Democrats marked the culmination of
Pelosi's effort to stake out the high election-year ground on ethics.
The issue was a difficult one for many Democrats, and some members of the
black caucus have privately appealed to Jefferson in recent weeks to step
aside voluntarily.
Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, a member of the Democratic leadership
as well as the black caucus, said the rank and file had confronted "two
competing interests - the legal interest and the political interest."
While the vote was not close, it also underscored the concern among
Democrats that Jefferson was being sanctioned arbitrarily.
The chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Melvin Watt of North
Carolina, said after the vote that by taking the action they did, fellow
Democrats chose "political expediency" or some other unacceptable factor
over precedent. "Even at the end of the meeting, we don't know what the
standard has been," he said.
Watt said that constituents of some lawmakers will adopt the view that race
was a factor in the decision. "I think there are people who will say that's
the basis," he said. Blacks are among the Democrats' most loyal voters.
Democrats earlier in the evening rejected a call to sidetrack the
proceedings until a rule had been adopted to cover situations like
Jefferson's. Rep. Steven Rothman, D-N.J., said he sought the step because
without rules, the action was "extraordinarily arbitrary."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_JEFFERSON?SITE=CASRP&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME
5. It's too soon to tell whose number is
up - Chicago Sun-Times Op-ed
June 16, 2006
BY TOM BEVAN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
How quickly things can change. For months Democrats have been basking in the
glow of President Bush's dismal approval ratings, ongoing investigations of
Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and a White House in disarray and
seemingly helpless to respond to the steady stream of bad news in Iraq.
There has been giddy speculation by some Democrats about retaking control of
one or both houses of Congress, and more than a few stories have popped up
recently reporting that Democrats are already hard at work making plans for
when they regain majority status in November. But a string of events over
the last few weeks has seen the Democrats come crashing back to Earth.
The first blow came with the investigation of Rep. William Jefferson
(D-La.). Allegations of bribery ballooned into a media frenzy in late May
after court documents revealed an FBI search of the Louisiana Democrat's
home turned up $90,000 cash stuffed in his freezer. A plea deal by a staffer
and the subsequent raid of Jefferson's congressional office by the FBI
(which infuriated members of both parties) has kept the story in the
national headlines and significantly undermined the Democrats' efforts to
try and nationalize the mid-term elections around a Republican "culture of
corruption" in Washington.
A second piece of bad news came in last Tuesday's special election in
California's 50th Congressional District to replace disgraced Republican
Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now in prison after admitting to taking
more than $2 million in bribes while in office. Democrats had high hopes
that a victory in this heavily Republican district would deal a significant
blow to GOP morale and be a harbinger of a coming Democratic wave this
November. Both sides poured millions of dollars into the contest, but
despite the stench of corruption and a highly energized base, Democrat
Francine Busby lost to Republican Brian Bilbray by 4 points, managing to get
only 1 percentage point more of the vote than John Kerry received in the
district in 2004.
Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
had to settle for declaring the race a moral victory, but the results
suggest that while the GOP is still going to have to fight tooth and nail to
retain control of Congress, as of right now the dynamics that would indicate
a massive shift in favor of Democrats this November simply aren't there.
Another bummer for Democrats was the official announcement this week that
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will not seek an indictment against
Karl Rove. Frog-marching Rove out of the White House in handcuffs has been
one of the Democrats' most treasured fantasies over the last two years, so
news that he is off the hook is clearly a huge disappointment. It's even
more than that, however, because not only did the Bush administration escape
the serious political damage (not to mention the insane media frenzy) that
would have accompanied a Rove indictment, but Bush's Brain is now back in
business and fully focused on the 2006 elections.
By far, however, the worst news for Democrats from a political standpoint is
the good news coming out of Iraq. The killing of terrorist mastermind Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi and the final appointments to the Iraq Cabinet last week
were a huge boost for the Bush administration. The president shrewdly turned
right around and parlayed those accomplishments into an even bigger victory
with his surprise visit to Baghdad on Tuesday. Despite suffering from jet
lag, Bush was back in Washington on Wednesday morning appearing energized,
engaged, and confident at a Rose Garden press conference.
For the first time in months the White House has gotten sustained positive
news coverage out of Iraq, and Bush's poll numbers appear to be inching back
upward. Democrats have been forced to stand in the president's shadow,
offering meek criticisms that begin "Zarqawi's death is good news, but . .
." Suddenly, Democrats are back in the perilous position of trying to
criticize the president without coming off looking like they're rooting for
America to fail in Iraq.
Even though he's not on the ballot this November, a resurgent Bush buoyed by
progress in Iraq would be bad news for Democrats' hopes to regain control of
Congress. Whether or not Bush's upswing is a blip or a trend remains to be
seen. There's still more than four months to go before the election and, as
Democrats have learned in just the past few weeks, that's plenty of time for
one's political fortunes to change.
Tom Bevan is the co-founder and executive editor of RealClearPolitics.com.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/bevan/cst-edt-bevan16.html#
### |
