31 Victims Wish Gitmo Had Kept Mehsud

The moral of the story is that releasing terrorist enemy combatants from Guantanamo kills people. What is the story that leads to that moral? The tale of Abdullah Mehsud, a one-legged terrorist leader once housed at Guantanamo.

Liberal critics of the Bush administration’s detainment of terrorist enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay are full of sympathy and understanding for these so-called “freedom fighters” or “insurgents.” Those same critics have taken the administration to court in order to extend rights and legal representation to these terrorists caught in battle, arguing that they deserve criminal trials and should be released rather than held indefinitely. In the liberal mind these captured enemy combatants were never as dangerous or involved in high level terrorist activity as the military or the Bush administration claimed. As usual, however, liberal criticism of such military detentions has been proved unwarranted. As it turns out, even the detainees who are eventually released for various reasons immediately resume their jihad as soon as they return to Afghanistan, Iraq, or in one case symptomatic of the problem, Pakistan.

The story of Taliban leader Abdullah Mehsud illustrates quite clearly why it is not a good idea to release these enemy combatants while we are fighting a global war against Islamic terrorists. From today’s Washington Post:

A top Taliban commander who had became one of Pakistan's most wanted men since being released from U.S. custody in 2004 died Tuesday as security forces raided his hide-out, officials here said.

Abdullah Mehsud had earned a fearsome reputation by orchestrating brazen attacks and kidnappings, and was regarded as one of the masterminds of an insurgency that has spread from Afghanistan into Pakistan and grown more intense in recent weeks.

Pakistani officials said Mehsud blew himself up with a grenade early Tuesday morning rather than surrender as security forces closed in on his hideout....

...Mehsud, who was believed to be 31, was captured by U.S. troops in Afghanistan in late 2001, after the United States launched an invasion to topple the Taliban regime. The prisoner spent 25 months in the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But he apparently concealed his identity from his captors, and was released in March 2004. Mehsud later bragged that he had convinced Americans at Guantanamo that he was Afghan, not Pakistani.

Almost as soon as he was freed, the one-legged fighter -- he lost his other leg to a landmine -- resumed waging war, Pakistani officials say. The government of Pakistan placed an $84,000 bounty on his head after his followers kidnapped two Chinese engineers in October 2004. One of the engineers survived, while the other died during the rescue operation.

Mehsud, who operated both in Afghanistan and in the tribal areas of Pakistan, was believed to have ties to al Qaeda. It was not known if he had a role in the recent spate of attacks, though he was suspected in connection with a car bombing last week that targeted a convoy of Chinese engineers in Baluchistan. The engineers survived, but 30 Pakistanis were killed.

In this case, the government released Mehsud because he reportedly convinced Guantanamo officials that he was not a Taliban terrorist in Pakistan. The veracity of Mehsud’s bragging is questionable, but his release and subsequent behavior validate the Bush administration’s policy of indefinite detainment at facilities like Guantanamo. Even if the two attacks described above were the only ones orchestrated by Mehsud since his release from Guantanamo, which is highly unlikely, his release alone directly led to the deaths of 31 victims.

He returned to Pakistan and immediately resumed his role as an inspirational terrorist leader, yet the president’s critics incessantly pine for legal protections and releases for more than three hundred of Mehsud’s fellow terrorists. I am sure the families of Mehsud’s 31 most recent victims could offer convincing testimony regarding the wisdom of indefinite detentions for enemy combatants at Guantanamo. Unfortunately, liberals seeking to condemn President Bush listen more closely to the ACLU’s defense of “rights” for detainees than they do to reports of what happens when murderous terrorists are set free.

Mehsud further demonstrated that he preferred an explosive suicidal death to being captured and facing any form of legal prosecution or Pakistani military detainment. By continuing his policy of taking the fight to the enemy in its own lands, President Bush is allowing all who share Mehsud’s desire for ultimate justice their opportunity for self-execution. In the end, Mehsud did not want a lawyer, he wanted a grenade. He did not want a trial, he wanted martyrdom.

Ironically, he was never safer from his own suicidal ideology than he was while detained at Guantanamo. Setting such men free is potentially lethal, to innocents and to the terrorists themselves. We can increase global security for everyone by keeping these captured terrorists in pocket as long as we are at war with them.

Technorati Tags:
Abdullah Mehsud, Guantanamo, Enemy Combatants, al Qaeda, Bush Administration, Suicide, Islamic Terrorists

Hamas Runs Mickey Mouse Operation

If you dislike forking over your hard earned income for Disney entertainment knowing the company’s embrace of gay rights and other controversial issues, it will outrage you to learn that the United States government has been donating millions of dollars to a Palestinian terrorist group that uses Mickey Mouse to teach children hatred for Israel and America, as well as Islamic world domination under Islamic rule.

In fairness to Disney, it is not the real Mickey Mouse. As liberal as the Disney Company has become, however, this is not a Disney sponsored or condoned phenomenon. In a blatant theft of Disney’s trademark and intellectual property, Terror group Hamas, which, through direct funding by the U.S. government to the Abbas Palestinian government and Fatah militia, has invested in Hamas Television and helped create Farfur, a blatant imitation of Mickey Mouse. Farfur is no ordinary cartoon character for children. Hamas Television is a propaganda arm of the rabidly anti-Israeli group responsible for most suicide bombings that occur in Israel. Bombings at Jerusalem’s Sbarro’s restaurant, discos and other gathering points for Israeli civilians and visiting tourists have been the scenes of Hamas’s campaign of terror in recent years. Farfur is now winning the hearts and minds of Palestinian youth through cute vignettes and songs, such as the following inspirational anthem. Clap and sing with Farfur if you know the words:

"Oh Jerusalem, we are coming…
Oh Jerusalem, we will never surrender to the enemy,
We will never be humiliated,
It is beloved Palestine that taught us what to be
And taught us to be the soldiers of the Lord of the Worlds
We will destroy the chair of the despots, so they will taste the flame of death.
We will lead a war."[Al Aqsa TV, April 30, 2007]

Destroying Israel is not enough for the beloved Farfur, who, along with his youthful girl co-host named Saraa’, merrily teaches Palestinian children to fight until they win:

Farfur: “Yes, we, tomorrow’s pioneers, will restore to this nation its glory, and we will liberate Al-Aqsa, with Allah’s will, and we will liberate Iraq, with Allah’s will, and we will liberate the Muslim countries, invaded by murderers.”

Saraa’: “Yes, they are children occupied by the Jews, but with the will of Allah, we will resist and protect against the Zionist occupation.”

Farfur: “Until we win, with the will of Allah, we will resist until we win.”[Al-Aqsa TV, April 16, 2007]

The existence of this program, as reported by Free Republic, was exposed by Palestinian Media Watch, an organization that offered a chilling assessment of the content and appeal of the Mickey Mouse clone:

The writing in this show is quite sophisticated. Farfur's performance is unquestionably funny and entertaining, as is the character’s comic timing. For example, as he rhymes off a list of world figures, he chirps: “We will win, Bush! We will win, Condoleezza! We will win, Sharon!” Then, without missing a beat, he quips, “Ah, Sharon is dead” (sic), reinforcing his message that the plan for world domination is progressing.

Using a character based on an appealing, world famous and beloved icon like Mickey Mouse to teach Islamic supremacy and resistance as Islamic duty is a powerful and effective way to indoctrinate children.

The effectiveness of this program is heightened by including child viewers, who phone in to the show and recite poems with images of hate and violence; for example, “We will destroy the chair of the despots, so they will taste the flame of death;” and, "Rafah sings ‘Oh, oh.’ Its answer is an AK-47. We who do not know fear, we are the predators of the forest."

Is it any wonder that terrorist groups are having increasing success recruiting younger and younger children to strap on suicide vests, or in the case of al Qaeda in Iraq, driving vehicle-borne IEDs into security checkpoints and detonating? Bush administration critics are quick to condemn the Iraq War and the War on Terror in general, but are slow to recognize the nature of the enemy the entire free world faces. In America, Hollywood and a free press lead the charge against President Bush, and are free to do so, although it should be mandatory for them to declare their bias as a disclaimer rather than incorporate it into their movie scripts and news stories as if it were truth. Nevertheless, their counterparts in Palestinian media are utilizing the same (literally, in this case) eye catching entertainment techniques to brainwash children to become future terrorists and eventually martyrs.

Considering our self-imposed limitations on what we will and will not accept in our fight against terrorism, it seems that our very scruples may hasten our demise when faced, as we are, with an enemy that clones Mickey Mouse and uses his charming appearance and voice to recruit for future battles. In America’s noble desire for peace, America has lavished monetary aid upon the Palestinian Abbas government despite widely accepted reports that the money is used to purchase weapons for Hamas and apparently also to broadcast cute little Farfur terrorist recruitment programs to impressionable children.

I am proud that our culture rejects such methods, but it is instructive to note the absolute desire to win expressed through Farfur’s message. Driving the Jews out of Israel is not enough. Driving the U.S. out of Iraq is insufficient. The message is one of world domination and the imposition of Islamic rule and law upon all peoples and cultures. America’s enemy is not terrorism. America’s enemy is any ideology that utilizes terrorism to achieve its goal, in this case global Sharia, which is the antithesis of democracy. We are fighting terrorists in Iraq to preserve a new democracy, but we are sending money to the Abbas Palestinian government that is used to wage war and terrorism against a long-standing ally and democracy, Israel. Under such conditions, winning a war against terrorism seems an unlikely goal.

Killing of Terror Chief in Iraq Must Shock Hagel

Yesterday I wrote about Senator Chuck Hagel’s (R-NE) “expert” opinion published in the Washington Post that al-Qaeda and terrorists are not the core problem in Iraq. On Monday, the “not a core problem” al Qaeda groups killed nine 82nd Airborne soldiers in a massive attack, but that was not likely sufficient to change Hagel’s mind about his assessment of the situation in Iraq. Today, U.S. command announced that in its recently expanded operations in Baghdad’s suburbs, Muhammad Abdullah Abbas al-Issawi was killed during an extended encounter with coalition forces. This will come as a great shock to Senator Hagel, since al-Issawi was al Qaeda’s chief tactician in the Anbar Province and was reportedly the mastermind behind al Qaeda’s recruiting of twelve year-old Iraqi boys to serve as suicide car bombers in Baghdad.

If al Qaeda and terrorists are not the core problem in Iraq, perhaps Hagel can explain al-Issawi’s stature and “accomplishments” there. It seems that no sooner had Hagel returned from his latest trip to Iraq and ran to the Post to dismiss al Qaeda’s presence and role in Iraq, al Qaeda demonstrated that it is in fact responsible for much of the so-called insurgency. Hagel insisted that Iraq is mired in a civil war, but how can that be true when the vast majority of VBIEDs, IEDs, and suicide bombings are planned, funded, and executed at the behest of al Qaeda and other non-Iraqi terrorist groups? Would Iraqi boys line up to serve as suicide bombers without the influence of terrorist groups?

The purpose of the Petraeus surge strategy is to provide Baghdad with sufficient security for the parliament to carry out its functions and build a united Iraq. Hagel sees bombings and casualties and in a knee-jerk reaction assumes that Iraqis, without the insidious influence of outside elements, are at war with each other and thus the cause is hopeless. That view, while politically opportunistic, is not corroborated by reports from the Armed Forces. Hagel should read a few military blogs before sharing his “expertise” with the media.

Hagel wants to wash his hands of this war by inaccurately portraying it as a civil war, thus placing blame on Iraqis for the socio-political disaster that will occur if America withdraws from Iraq before the Iraqi government is capable of sustaining and defending itself from overt and covert interference from its neighbors. Like Macbeth, however, Hagel will find that the blood never quite washes clean from guilty hands. America made a commitment to the Iraqis, but Pelosi, Reid, Hagel, and others want to place restrictions on our patience and declare our commitment not to be open ended. Under political pressure, even President Bush has been forced to promise that troops will not be in Iraq indefinitely. As Americans, our commitment to freedom and democracy must be open ended and unquestioned by our allies and enemies alike. If Hagel wonders why Americans never seriously considered him as presidential timbre, he need look no further than his willingness to turn his back on a newly freed nation under siege by terrorists.

Liberal Reaction to Failed Taliban Attack on U.S. Vice President: "Better Luck Next Time"

The major news story yesterday was a suicide bomber’s detonation outside the secured perimeter at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, during Vice President Cheney’s visit with military personnel there, but the attack was only half the story. The unabashed disappointment expressed by liberals to the fact that the attack failed was perhaps the aspect that deserves the most attention.

To summarize the incident liberals cheered, the bomb killed at least 23, including one U.S. soldier, one South Korean soldier, and one U.S. contractor. The remaining 20 victims were reportedly Afghani civilians, many of them truck drivers employed to deliver goods to the Bagram base, waiting in line to go through security screening for entry to the base. The bomber did not penetrate security and detonated outside the checkpoint, thus it would appear the Taliban claim that Vice President Cheney was the target of the attack was likely mere political bluster. The U.S. Military put forth the following statement that best describes a plausible motive for the rush by the Taliban to claim the attack targeted the Vice President:

"We actually think that their tying it to the vice president's visit ... was an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that the attack killed so many Afghan civilians, including a 12-year-old boy," said Lt. Col. David Accetta, a U.S. military spokesman.

Attacks at sites where high level U.S. dignitaries are visiting understandably receive extensive international coverage. However, the bombing also served to reveal something very ugly and despicable in American society: personal disdain for a vice president that has become so vitriolic that members of the opposing party are unashamedly disappointed when an alleged assassination attempt of the U.S. Vice President by a foreign enemy fails.

Consider this historical hypothetical comparison which should help place the liberal reactions to the claimed attack on Vice President Cheney quoted below in proper perspective:

It is February 1945, and after 4 years of brutal war in Europe and the Pacific, America has suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties fighting a war against ideologies bent on the destruction of America. Vice President Harry Truman decides, at great personal risk, to visit U.S. troops at an air base in the Pacific preparing for a spring offensive against Okinawa. Keeping his intended destination secret, Truman arrives at the Pacific base, greets and dines with soldiers, offering them encouragement and continued support. During Truman’s visit, an enemy combatant approaches a security checkpoint at the Pacific base and detonates a suicide bomb that kills 23 people, including 2 Americans. Truman is taken to a prepared shelter until base security is confirmed, and then, in courageous fashion, continues with his visit and later flies to Manila to meet with a cooperative but somewhat embattled local leader, all while still in mortal danger from further attempts on his life. When news reaches America that the enemy claimed it had attempted to assassinate Truman but failed, many Americans write letters to the editors of local and national newspapers expressing their disappointment that the enemy had not shown more competence and succeeded in “killing Truman over there so we won’t have to do it here.”

Of course, in February 1945, no true American of any party would have harbored such thoughts or wishes against Truman regardless of political persuasion or war opposition (a negligible phenomenon in that war). Yet in today’s supposedly “enlightened” liberal society, disappointment and write-in expressions of anger that Vice President Cheney survived the attack at Bagram were the reactions of such a high number of readers of a highly popular liberal blog, the Huffington Post, that the web site managers were forced to shut down the reader comment thread for an article titled, “Over 20 Die in Attack on Cheney” after reader comments containing wishes that the Vice President had been killed filled 12 pages, as reported by World Net Daily. WND also successfully captured the comments before they were deleted by Huffington Post site managers.

For the record, the Huffington Post acted responsibly by closing the thread and deleting the comments, as they could potentially be a legal liability should some reader determine, based on the shared support of so many fellow readers, that he/she should attempt to do what the Taliban failed to accomplish. Thanks to World Net Daily, we have a representative sample of how personal, irrational, and truly un-American the anti-Cheney (and anti-Bush, which is actually even more acerbic) sentiment in the Democratic Party has become:

Better luck next time! (TDB)

Dr Evil escapes again ... damn. (truthtopower01)

So Cheney is personally responsible for the deaths of 14 innocent people ... and then he waddles off to lunch!! What a piece of sh--! (fantanfanny

Jesus Christ and General Jackson too, can't the Taliban do anything right? They must know we would be so gratefull (sic) to them for such a remarkable achievement. (hankster2)

Hey, Thalia, lighten up. I, for one, don't wish Cheny (sic) had been killed. I wish he had been horribly maimed and had to spend the rest of his life hooked to a respirator. Feel better now? (raisarooney)

Let's see ... they're killing him over there so we don't have to kill him over here? (ncjohn)

And they missed!? Oh, Hell. Like Mamma used to say, I guess it's the thought that counts ... (Anachro1)

You can never find a competent suicide bomber when you need one. Mark701)

Amazingly Democrats wonder why Republicans question their patriotism. As much as Republicans disliked Bill Clinton, hopefully even the liberal left can recognize that impeaching a man for perjury is a lesser level of disdain than wishing that terrorists had killed him while in office. Expressing such wishes verbally or in writing actually constitutes a felony under federal law, hence the Huffington Post’s wise decision to remove such comments from the blog. Republicans were not particularly fond of President Carter, but would have responded with unanimous condemnation and retaliatory force had he been sitting on the reviewing stand with Anwar Sadat when Sadat was assassinated in 1981. The idea of anyone attacking or killing our elected leaders should produce nothing but outrage and a determination to prevent that from happening to any of them, anywhere they may go, in war time or periods of peace.

More disturbing is the realization that many so-called Americans would ever wish for an enemy to determine who holds office by circumventing our democratic process through assassination. We choose our leaders and we should condemn and thwart any effort that takes that choice out of our control.

Many conservatives have argued that liberals are rooting against American success in Iraq and Afghanistan, and expressions of ignorant and inflammatory vitriol, as demonstrated by Huffington Post readers, provide additional evidence that such observations are accurate. Clearly the majority of readers commenting on the incident at Bagram Air Base hate Vice President Cheney on the same level as the Taliban, as they too wished to see him dead.

Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton have declared that Iraq is “Bush’s war,” which has become a phrase used interchangeably with “Iraq War” throughout the liberal media. Framing the war in that manner assures that actually winning in Iraq or defeating terrorists anywhere will hurt Democratic chances in 2008, hence they cannot be expected to do anything to tangibly improve national security or lead to military victory in the Middle East. They simply cannot afford to allow President Bush to succeed in any way, and their personal hatred for the Bush/Cheney team trumps all other instincts, even their own survival. After all, if the Taliban reportedly hoped to kill Vice President Cheney, why would Democrats think they would be immune from such attempts if they were in office?

Terrorists don’t distinguish between our parties and call cease fires on Americans during Democratic administrations. Apparently forgotten are the seizing of our embassy in Tehran in 1979, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, the bombing of the USSS Cole in 2000, and other attacks during the Carter and Clinton administrations.

The liberal Vice President Cheney haters, in their rabid desire to blame him for everything from global war to global warming, should focus on organizing enough votes to elect a vice president they can support rather than wish radical Islamic terrorists would eliminate a man they failed to defeat politically. Americans should be united in our gratitude that the Vice President was not hurt, not because it was “Dick Cheney, “ or “Darth Cheney,” as liberals like to call him, but simply because he is America’s Vice President, regardless of party affiliation. A phrase the ACLU has not yet litigated against because it contains no God reference, E Pluribus Unum, states perfectly the unity with which America should respond when its leaders are targeted for assassination: Out of many, one.