Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated"

Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:15pm 

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting.

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.

Libi, a top al Qaeda commander believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.

The remarks were the first from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies.

Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain.

Some posters have also argued over the merits of trying to attack the United States before the election or waiting until later, the report said.

But SITE said it did not expect al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to openly favor a candidate.

"To support a particular candidate would debase al-Qaeda's long-standing argument that the United States government is a corrupt institution no matter who is at the helm," SITE director Rita Katz said in the group's November newsletter.

In 2004 bin Laden issued his first video in more than a year just days before the U.S. elections. It derided Bush and warned of possible new September 11-style attacks.

Bin Laden made little mention of Bush's Democratic challenger, John Kerry, telling Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."

Kerry has attributed his loss in part to the video's high-profile reminder of the terrorism issue.

In 2006, after Democrats captured Congress, Zawahri issued an audio message saying all Americans remained al Qaeda's enemies regardless of party, SITE said.

SITE said militant postings on al Qaeda-linked websites typically discuss Obama in terms of his race, or his religion and foreign policy. Some forecast a racial crisis dividing the United States if he wins. Others say his planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been portrayed as likely to allow "the continuation of Republican control and aggressive policies toward the Islamic world."

(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen in Washington; editing by Chris Wilson)

(dubai.newsroom@reuters.com)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is this what we want to give to the terrorists? To the peoples of the world who hate us? There must be a reason they want Obama in the White House and Democrats in Congress. 

Question 1. Why? 

I can only imagine that they think that with this scenario they think we will be pushovers. 

They think they will be able to run roughshod over the Middle East and achieve their goal of destroying the nation of Israel. They don't want Israel to be diminished; they have stated their goal of wiping that country off the face of the Earth. Under a Democratic government, will America allow this to happen? I am not pro-Israel in the sense that it's Israel or nothing. I think that Israel has as much right to exist as any other country does. Back before Israel was established, Palestine had the opportunity to take part of the land that is now Israel for its own. It refused, thinking the land was worthless, and wanting it all just to keep it from becoming a Jewish homeland. I believe this land was offered to Palestine on several occasions, and time, Palestine refused. They finally lost the chance to have any of it and Israel got a piece of land that was not really worth anything and turned it into what it is today. 

Question 2: Why do they want Bush humiliated? 

Bush must have done something right if the terrorists and terroristic-inclined nations want him to be humiliated. Remember, we've not had another terrorist attack in the United States since 2001. I don't know that we can thank Bush for that, it might be that Homeland Security is doing it's job. But if we want to slam Bush for what we think are mistakes he's made, we also have to give him the credit for what has happened. In this case, our country has been safe for the last seven years. 

The American that we knew today will probably change tremendously over the next four years. For the better or worse? That will probably depend on your point of view. I'll have to wait and see. 

We have to remember that whomever is elected president has to have the support of Congress in order to pass bills. McCain, with a Democratic Congress, may not be able to do what he wants to do because it isn't in the "interest" of Congress. It looks like Obama may have the best possible scenario and have a Democratic Congress. I'm always concerned when the White House and Congress are control by the same parties. It could lead to legislation that is not in the best interest of the country, but the best interest of specific demographics. 

I'm square in the middle of the middle class. Can I depend on a Democratic White House and Congress to look out for my best interests? They don't know me and the people I represent. What I have been seeing over my lifetime is that the Democrats favor the demographics that will keep them in office and that's not necessarily my demographic. 

Doesn't Congress work for us, the citizens? They are to represent us, the citizens. They have been interviewing for their jobs for months. And frankly, I really haven't seen many of the interviewees who are worth the energy it takes to make a check mark on a ballot form.

Seems to me that there has been an awful lot of what is in the best interest of the Party over the best interests of the country - and that includes both parties. There's certainly enough blame to go around.

Personally, I don't want to give the terrorists reason to celebrate. I want them worried about what America will do under a new administration. I don't want them to put the president to a test, I want them worried about what the President will do when and if they take an action that is "unfriendly", to say the least, to our allies or to us. I want them to know that the President has a backbone and isn't afraid to show it. 

We've already heard what they've had to say about us and their intent toward us and our allies and through Internet videos. I can understand and, actually am in favor of, talking with leaders of other countries and groups. But, there comes a time when talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. We need an administration who knows when to talk and when to act, and most importantly, what action is appropriate under the circumstances. A fly swatter isn't much good against incoming missiles, but I don't want a president who will use a nuclear bomb when a slap on the wrist is sufficient to catch their attention. 

Those nations and terroristic groups must understand that America will stand behind their allies and what is in our best interest, alone if necessary. They must also understand that we're not afraid to go in and kick butt and take names later.