Al Qaeda gloats over Rumsfeld
By Claudia Parsons


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A purported audio recording by the leader of Iraq's al Qaeda wing gloated over the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as a top U.S. general said the military was preparing to recommend strategy changes.

Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, said in the recording posted on the Internet on Friday that the group had 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight U.S. troops in Iraq.

"I tell the lame duck (U.S. administration) do not rush to escape as did your defense minister...stay on the battle ground," he said.


He said his group would not rest until it had blown up the presidential mansion in Washington.

"I swear by God we shall not rest from jihad until we...blow up the filthiest house known as the White House," the voice on the recording said.

Stung by a "thumping" defeat in Tuesday's congressional elections, President George W. Bush said Rumsfeld had resigned because there was a need for "fresh perspective" in Iraq.

Bush said he was open to any idea for a new approach and publicly reaffirmed a belief that "victory" was possible.

The Pentagon's top general said on Friday U.S. military leaders were preparing to recommend changes in Iraq strategy but Rumsfeld's departure would not have a direct effect.

We have to give ourselves a good honest scrub about what is working and what is not working, what are the impediments to progress and what should we change about the way we are doing it to make sure that we get to the objective that we set for ourselves," General Peter Pace, chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on the "Early Show" on CBS television

"The change in leadership itself will not have a direct impact on what we do or don't do in Iraq," Pace said. "We continuously review what's going right, what's going wrong, what needs to change."

Rumsfeld will be replaced by former CIA director Robert Gates, a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group assessing alternative strategies for Iraq.

SECTARIAN VIOLENCE


The big question for most Iraqis is whether the change of guard will mean a swifter withdrawal of U.S. troops. Opinions are sharply divided over whether that would be a good thing for a country riven by sectarian violence.

On Thursday in Baghdad alone, six car bombs and four roadside bombs killed 18 people and wounded dozens, and police found the bodies of 26 people shot dead, some of them tortured. Mortar fire killed another three and wounded 30.

Baghdad was under a regular curfew on Friday to avoid violence on the Muslim day of prayer. In Tal Afar in northwest Iraq, a suicide car bomb hit an army checkpoint on Friday, killing a colonel and four soldiers and wounding 17, police said.

The U.S. military said three soldiers were killed by two separate roadside bombs on Thursday. A Marine died of wounds on Thursday following combat in Anbar province, where Sunni rebels are fighting in the west.

Health Minister Ali al-Shemari was quoted on Thursday as saying about 150,000 Iraqis had been killed since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, and as many as 500,000 wounded.

Casualty figures are controversial, notably since the United Nations put the monthly civilian toll at more than 3,000 earlier this year and a group of medical statisticians estimated more than 650,000 might have been killed since the U.S. invasion.

Evidence of civilian casualties is scarce. The Iraqi government has tightened rules to prevent officials outside the prime minister's office releasing figures. Reuters typically reports several dozen killings a day, but many go unreported.

The Austrian APA news agency quoted Shemari as saying 35,000 Iraqis were being killed annually from attacks. He did not explain how he reached an estimated total of 150,000 dead.

Analysts have questioned Health Ministry data on casualties. The ministry is run by the political movement of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr whose Mehdi Army militia Washington has accused of running death squads, an allegation it denies.

(Additional reporting by Alastair Macdonald in Baghdad and Randall Mikkelsen in Washington)


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene ... ticlePage3

shocking!

It’s hard to tell sometimes if the Republicans are swallowing the al Qaeda propaganda, or the other way around. Maybe it’s both.

I, for one, don't give a shit if al qaeda is "emboldened."

I'm much more concerned whether I'm embittered.

Exactly.

So - does nobody besides LeninFlux feel there is some truth to the notion Al Qaeda views the election results as a victory of sorts? I'm not maintaining that it's necessarily a legitimate view, but it would appear pretty plain they view this as a direct result of the effectiveness of their insurgency in Iraq.

Who cares if they see it as a victory? Honestly, what difference does it make?

Does Al Qaeda run our democracy now?

Well - my question was actually directed at the folks who presumably do care - but my general answer to your question would be that victories encourage them to continue on their current tack - slaughtering innocents for political gain. Now maybe it's your contention that nothing is going to change that tack, and you may be right. Which is pretty frigging depressing if you ask me.

That's a really stupid and pointless answer. Nice job chopping your quote to remove the part of my post that addressed the weak ass strawman I was pretty sure someone was going to throw out.

far as I can tell, nothing that Rumsfeld initiated has put a stop to that though... maybe the insurgency would do better to think of Rumsfeld's departure as a loss since there will (hopefully) be new measures taken now?

I don't see how a victory...or a defeat, changes anything.

It's a really stupid and pointless question. Hence, the answer.

What would anyone expect Al Queda to say?? It's just more bullshit propaganda, pay it no mind.

I agree. I think removing Rumsfeld was long overdue. I'm just questioning the folks who think the idea that the election results and the resignation are viewed as a victory of sorts by the enemy is pure propaganda.

then kindly stay the fuck out of the thread and let the folks who are interested in discussing the issue carry on. thanks.

I kindly will not. At least as long as I run this board

My opinion about this is as valid as any other. My opinion being that nobody should care about what Al Qaeda thinks about this.

Just to clarify my position - I think this is important because we need to keep certain facts in mind...

- Iraq is one of the central fronts of the War Against Terror. Note the number of "troops" they say they have in the country.

- Al-Qaeda is bent on our destruction, whether we leave Iraq immediately or not. Therefore, it makes more sense to take the fight to them in their backyard rather than ours.

- Vice President Cheney was mocked when he said that Ned Lamont's primary win "emboldens Al-Qaeda types." Turns out he was right.

That being said, I'm not suggesting that we should vote for Republicans because Al-Qaeda wants Democrats in power. What I do think is important is that the new Congress pay close attention to the threat that remains in Iraq and around the world before they present their plan for moving forward in the Iraq War.

It doesn't matter if it's propaganda or not. This election was hyped so much in the media because, as Chris Matthews put it, "it was a referendum on the Iraq war." The American people did't trust the path the administration and congress were leading us. Our leaders got us into this mess, and now we want new ones to get us out. It's not that the mythical Al Qaeda is defeating us, it's just that our leaders have been incompetent thus far.

I hope that al Qaeda does consider it a victory. I mean, good for them. It's not going to make a difference to what they do vis-a-vis the US, so who cares. They wanted to kill us before, they want to kill us now, and they are in no better position to kill than they were before.

All kinds of people believe all kinds of things in this world. They don't make them so.