Why al Qaeda is happy

Richard Miniter:

AMERICA'S enemies are gloating over this week's election results - and the Bush administration's air of imminent retreat. Meanwhile, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, the tremendously gifted Zalmay Khalilzad, is said to be on the way out.

"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament, they voted for a level of reason," said Ayyub al-Masri, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. In a recording posted on jihadi Web sites, he called Bush a "lame duck" and accused Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of "rushing to escape."

The group boasts of having 12,000 fighters in Iraq who have "vowed to die for God's sake." That is not a bluff, according to several high-ranking members of the intelligence community: Al Qaeda in Iraq is more dangerous than ever.

"Al Masri is much more effective than [Abu Musab al] Zarqawi," one intelligence officer told me. After U.S. forces killed Zarqawi in June, al Qaeda consolidated its control over tribal leaders and Sunni insurgents - who'd otherwise be starved for money and ammunition. Zarqawi's divisive lieutenants have been replaced. (One was found in a dumpster last week.)

And bin Laden's control is stronger than ever. Al Masri talks to al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al Zawahiri, on a daily basis.

After delighting in the Democrats victory and Bush's capitulations, Masri added: "We haven't had enough of your blood yet."

Tehran was also celebrating.

"This issue [the elections] is not purely a domestic issue for America, but is a defeat for Bush's hawkish policies," said Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "This defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."

...

Stressing that he is not making a cheap political shot, American Enterprise Institute analyst Michael Rubin asks: "What policy shift does al Qaeda in Iraq welcome and why?"

For years, the left derided the Patriot Act, NSA wiretaps and other national-security measures as doing "exactly what al Qaeda wants." Now we know exactly what al Qaeda wants. Will that give governing Democrats any pause?

...

Al Qaeda has been using Democrat talking points for years. Many of Zawahiri and bin Laden's cowardly taped messages have echoed what the Democrats have been saying. What is still not clear is why this does not bother the Democrats that our enemies embrace them. It is not a cheap political shot to point this out. It should be a matter of deep concern if the Democrats really have an interest int he national security of this country, or do they just want a hudna with the enemy?

Power Line has a link rich post on terrorist being big fans of the Democrats.

...

... But isn't a reasonable starting point for that engagement the fact that the terrorists are delighted that the Dems have won, and are convinced that the Dems' policies, as the terrorists understand them, will benefit the jihadis? Don't the Democrats have some obligation to face up to the fact that the prospect of our disengagement from Iraq--and if that isn't their "new direction," then what in God's name is?--is viewed with glee by the enemy?

I join with Ed in hoping that we can prevent the Democrats from delivering Iraq to the jihadis, but my estimate of their good faith is lower than his. The Democrats have staked everything, politically speaking, on the proposition that the Iraq war is a failure and a disaster. They have every interest in ensuring that our effort there does, in fact, fail. I think, in short, that the terrorists are reading the Democrats' intentions correctly.

...

I don't think they can deliver for the terrorist right away which should lesson their support among their terrorist base.

Just One Minute thinks he knows what the Democrat response to all this support will be:

...

If the past five years is any guide, the Dems will respond by whining that Khamenei is attacking their patriotism.

...

He suggest that they may only want to fight back against Karl Rove and not the people who are trying to kill us.