The Recruits

Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah is spouting off about the arsenal of weapons that he has poised to attack Americans and our allies.

He claims that his weapons stockpile includes more than 200 human bombs.
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) -- A top Taliban commander said more than 200 rebel fighters were willing to become suicide attackers against U.S. forces and their allies _ a claim dismissed as propaganda Monday by Afghanistan's government, which said the hard-line militia was weakening. In an interview late Sunday with The Associated Press, the commander, Mullah Dadullah, ruled out any reconciliation with the U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai and claimed the country's new parliament _ its first in more than 30 years, inaugurated last week _ was "obedient to America."

..."More than 200 Taliban have registered themselves for suicide attacks with us which shows that a Muslim can even sacrifice his life for the well-being of his faith. Our suicide attackers will continue jihad (holy war) until Americans and all of their Muslim and non-Muslim allies are pulled out of the country," he said.

Gen. Mohammed Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for Afghanistan's Defense Ministry, dismissed Dadullah's claims of rebel strength as "propaganda" and said Afghanistan had enough security forces to deal with the rebels.

"The Taliban are isolated. The Taliban have no power. They are using land mines and terror activities ... or suicide attacks. These kind of operations show they are not strong and that they are weak," Azimi told the AP.

Azimi nails it.

Engaging in terrorist tactics and suicide attacks reveals the weakness of the radical Islamic fundamentalists, not their strength.

They practice a hateful ideology, where victory is only measured by destruction, including destroying themselves.
In November, Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak said intelligence indicated that a number of Arab al-Qaida members and other foreigners had entered Afghanistan to launch suicide attacks, and a senior government official said 22 would-be suicide bombers were believed to be in the country waiting for orders to attack.

Dadullah implied that the Taliban and al-Qaida were working together, and said mujahedeen from various parts of the world, including Arabs, were fighting in Afghanistan. He said the foreigners made up about 10 percent of the fighters.

"Both Taliban and al-Qaida have the same objectives," he said, warning that anyone supporting the Americans and the government "will be dealt with."

...In another sign that links between the Taliban and al-Qaida have continued, a tape of al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri surfaced this month in which he praised the Taliban chief Mullah Omar. In the tape, al-Zawahri claimed the rebel leader had won back control of extensive areas of western and eastern Afghanistan, though government and U.S. officials say the Taliban's influence is in fact waning.

...Dadullah ruled out reconciliation and talks with Karzai's government, saying it "owed its existence" to non-Muslims, and to do so would amount to "joining Christianity and working for Christians."

"My talks with them will only be for their destruction and nothing else," he said.

Karzai has encouraged Taliban members to leave the extremist group, renounce terrorism and go through a formal reconciliation program. So far, several hundred rank-and-file members and some 50 senior officials have done so, including some who ran in September's parliamentary elections.

That's not very PC of Dadullah to be so intolerant of Christians, is it?

To illustrate the Left's goofy relativism regarding Afghanistan, the Taliban, and bin Laden, let's flashback to an interview that Bill O'Reilly did with Michael Moore in July, 2004.




O: Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?

M: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.

O: Al Qaeda was given refuge by the Taliban.

M: But we didn’t go after them—did we?

O: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qaeda.

M: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.

O: OK, well look you can't kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan—you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you?

M: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.

O: How?

M: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Osama was—

O: Why was that?

M: That’s my question.

O: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated.

M: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two month head start.

O: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?

M: No, unless it is a threat to us.

Moore really is clueless.

He thinks the Taliban should have been allowed to remain in power. Apparently, he believes that just the al Qaeda members directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks should have been "tracked down."

That's the old Bill Clinton law enforcement 1990s strategy of dealing with terrorism. Of course, we know what a miserable failure that was.

In Moore's world, the 9/11 attacks were not acts of war. They were crimes.

Taliban commander Dadullah brags to the AP about the band of suicide bombers that he has at his disposal. The links between the Taliban and al Qaeda were, and still are, irrefutable; yet Moore actually said that he didn't see the Taliban as a threat to the United States.

Dr. Dean also considered the 9/11 attacks to be criminal.




Remember this? Two years ago, December 26, 2003, an interview detailing Dean's plan for bin Laden was made public.

New Hampshire's Concord Monitor reported that Dean said he would not state his preference on a punishment for bin Laden before the al Qaeda leader was captured and put before a jury.

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

This comes from the chairman of the DNC. It's truly mind-boggling. It's frightening. It's insane!

This is the mindset of the whiny liberal appeasers that view Bush and the Republicans as the enemy rather than the terrorists.

Moore's cluelessness and Dean's lunacy remind me of House MINORITY leader Nancy Pelosi and her many utterly witless comments regarding the War on Terror.


From the Washington Times, June 23, 2005:

On Tuesday, Mrs. Pelosi and three other top Democrats called for a commission to investigate reported abuses of detainees from the war on terror. Mrs. Pelosi said it is past time that the administration established a policy on determining the fates of the detainees at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, arguing that most are from Afghanistan and that the conflict there has ended.

"I assume that the war in Afghanistan is over, or is the contention that you have that it continues?" she said to a reporter.

A few moments later, she said: "This isn't about the duration of the war. The war in Afghanistan is over."

In June, Pelosi declared the war in Afghanistan to be over.

In the final days of December, Dadullah thinks otherwise.

What clearer examples could there be that the libs cannot be trusted with national security?

In his address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20, 2001, President Bush prepared the country for a long and difficult struggle in battling the ideology that prompted nineteen men to hijack civilian airliners and kill three thousand men, women, and children on our soil.

Obviously, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and like-minded Leftists didn't get it then and they don't get it now.

I have to believe that they don't understand the enemy and they don't understand what's at stake.

If they really understood, would they proceed in trying to undermine the Bush Administration's efforts to keep Americans and all free people safe from the violence perpetrated by Islamic extremists?

Can the libs really be that self-serving and politically motivated?

Could anyone be that irresponsible?
__________________

(Hint: To answer these questions, just read the New York Times or watch NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.)