Fox News memo: Look out for jihadis celebrating Democrats’ win

posted at 11:07 pm on November 14, 2006 by Allahpundit

Supposedly written by FNC Senior VP John Moody the day after the election:

The elections and Rumsfeld’s resignation were a major event, but not the end of the world. The war on terror goes on without interruption. Jennifer Griffin sent in info on Hamas’ call for attacks on American interests. And let’s be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress.

Outrageous!

Incidentally, why haven’t we heard from any AQ bigwigs lately? Between Zawahiri and Chubs, they were churning out videos at a fortnightly clip for awhile there over the summer. The last message from number two was September 29th. They didn’t even speak up to condemn the attack on the madrassa in Pakistan earlier this month that killed 80 mujahedeen.

Is Z just lying low, or is he dead? If the latter, why haven’t they announced it? If the former, what for?

Update: Or maybe he’s off sulking because his influence is on the wane:

As radical Islam spreads globally through online forums and chat rooms, a group of obscure Arab religious thinkers may come to exert more influence over the jihadist movement than Osama bin Laden and other well-known leaders of Al Qaeda, a research group at the United States Military Academy has concluded.

In a study billed as the “first systematic mapping” of an ideology sometimes called jihadism, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has found that Mr. bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, have had a relatively minor influence on the movement’s intellectual foundation. Among the network’s ideologists, they have come to be seen more as propagandists than strategic thinkers…

As a result, the authors found, the death or capture of Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri would do little to slow the spread of jihadist ideology.

Note this too:

The report found that radical Islam, sometimes called Salafism, is so deeply embedded in the Arab world that Salafis now constitute a “majority or significant portion” of the Muslim population in the Middle East and North Africa…

The report said most Salafis are not jihadis who are committed to violence, and some outside experts said the spread of radical ideology in cyberspace could lead to opportunities for Western efforts to exploit divisions within the movement.

You really should watch that BBC vid.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Remember the Jetsons?

-Yeah.

What was the name of the robot maid?

-Rosie.

What was the name of the dog?

-Astro.

What was the name of the muslim guy?

-There was no muslim guy.

Isn’t the future WONDERFUL?!

Tony737 on November 14, 2006 at 11:15 PM

uh oh. another “memo”.

jummy on November 14, 2006 at 11:15 PM

-There was no muslim guy.

Isn’t the future WONDERFUL?!

That’ll be enough of that, thanks.

Allahpundit on November 14, 2006 at 11:16 PM

The networks look for anti-Muslim bigotry among Americans, FNC looks for this. Truly, we are two nations.

Alex K on November 14, 2006 at 11:17 PM

“…a political hack”. So, Fox News calling Steny Hoyer a “political hack” isn’t a sign of bias, eh?

You people would be unhinged if you found an internal CNN memo referring to the fight between Pence and Boehner as the “nut and the screw-up”.

Grebrook on November 14, 2006 at 11:23 PM

My comment from HuffoPo, that will likely be deleted (as with all my post comments)

What exactly are you liberals outraged about? Hamas, Al Aqsa and other openly endorsed the Democrats before the election, and terrorist groups have cheered the Dems’ win. And I’m not even going to get in to the virtually identical statements coming out of DNC talking points and winding up in UBL and Zawahiri’s cave videos.

Again, what are you outraged about? This memo simply asks FNC reporters to be on the look out for what we know has and continues to happen. SHOCKING!

By: rightwinged on November 14, 2006 at 11:24pm

RightWinged on November 14, 2006 at 11:26 PM

Grebrook on November 14, 2006 at 11:23 PM

Look, the troll is back. Get bored at DU?

BacaDog on November 14, 2006 at 11:30 PM

Look, the troll is back.

I didn’t post here for 12 hours and you thought I left?

Grebrook on November 14, 2006 at 11:32 PM

Well i thought it was funny Tony737.

Biased media sucks whether your on the right or the left. Do you think there is any truth to the rumor that Fox paid off the terrorists who kidnapped their employees?

amish on November 14, 2006 at 11:36 PM

didn’t post here for 12 hours and you thought I left?

Grebrook on November 14, 2006 at 11:32 PM

Anyway, welcome back and comment away. At least here you won’t get banned for being the opposing party like I’ve been at some of your side’s sites.

Back to business..

You people would be unhinged if you found an internal CNN memo referring to the fight between Pence and Boehner as the “nut and the screw-up”.

Hell, Grebrook, no internal memo required. CNN openly says crap like that on the air as “news” when referring to Republicans.

BacaDog on November 14, 2006 at 11:42 PM

Does anyone know of any muslim extremist off kilter groups contributed money to dems campaigns?

dont wanna offend ap

Kini on November 14, 2006 at 11:47 PM

You people would be unhinged if you found an internal CNN memo referring to the fight between Pence and Boehner as the “nut and the screw-up”.

Grebrook on November 14, 2006 at 11:23 PM

Apples and oranges bud. This memo only reflects the truth. The terrorists endorsed the Dems and have celebrated their victory, in addition to constantly stealing talking points from the DNC for their cave videos.

Anyway, you’ve been calling this election which gave a very slim majority to the Dems the “demise” of the GOP, while I’ve argued that had they not one it truly would have been the demise of the Democratic Party, at least as it exists today. (I’m slowly warming up to the idea that Rove handed this to them so that they can put a bigger nail in their own coffin, but that’s another story.) But as I’ve stated, the Dems one by default. They’re pissed about the war mainly because WE (as a nation) aren’t prepared for a world war. Most of the country still doesn’t get it, and it didn’t take long for them to forget the lessons of 9/11, and I maintain that without the state of our current MSM the Dems wouldn’t have stood a chance. But back to my point about the Dems not winning on ideas, so this wasn’t some victory for them, as much as it was a loss/setback for the GOP… A new poll shows that a vast majority of Americans don’t believe the Dems have a plan for Iraq (because they don’t). Liberal ideas have not been embraced by America, not even close. The voters are upset with the handling of the war. This is what makes a second John Kerry run for POTUS so hilarious to me. No one wanted him in the first place. Anyone who voted for him, didn’t vote “for him” because they liked his plans or ideas (because he had none)… they voted against Bush.

RightWinged on November 14, 2006 at 11:58 PM

I’m slowly warming up to the idea that Rove handed this to them so that they can put a bigger nail in their own coffin, but that’s another story.)

I mean sometimes you just gotta take a step back and…wow. haha

crr6 on November 15, 2006 at 12:15 AM

Anyway, you’ve been calling this election which gave a very slim majority to the Dems the “demise” of the GOP, while I’ve argued that had they not one it truly would have been the demise of the Democratic Party, at least as it exists today.

Answer: http://www.pollingreport.com/institut2.htm#Democrats

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of the Democratic Party?

Favorable: 53%
Unfavorable: 35%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of the Republican Party?

Favorable: 38%
Unfavorable: 52%

Yeah, this portends absolutely no long-term problems for your party. Nope. Just a bump in the road folks, move along.

Grebrook on November 15, 2006 at 12:38 AM

grebrook,

Yeah, this portends absolutely no long-term problems for your party. Nope. Just a bump in the road folks, move along.

Don’t confuse bad political results with a leftward tilt, Grebrook. I am mad as hell at the republicans, but I voted republican, and will continue to do so, only because the alternative looks so much like Harry Reid.

It wasn’t liberal ideology that won. It was conservative ideology that lost — and it lost because the republican party abandoned it years ago. I am also quite saddened to point out that George W. Bush, Esq., seems to have largely abandoned it himself (to wit, amnesty for illegals, and refusing to use the veto pen allbut once in six years)…

It is precisely when the republicans learn to cater to their base that the voters will come back. Of that, I am positive.

gryphon202 on November 15, 2006 at 1:09 AM

It wasn’t liberal ideology that won.

gryphon202 on November 15, 2006 at 1:09 AM

‘nuf said.

RightWinged on November 15, 2006 at 1:43 AM

Don’t confuse bad political results with a leftward tilt, Grebrook.

Ok, how about Democrats winning 60-38 among the key 18-24 demographic? Sounds like a leftward tilt to me.

It is precisely when the republicans learn to cater to their base that the voters will come back. Of that, I am positive.

No, the entire reason you lost was because you were acting like right-wing zealots, ignoring serious issues concerning Iraq, the deficit, Katrina and other important matter in favor of garbage issues such as abortion, flag burning, Terri Schiavo and gay marriage.

You lost because you lost the middle, the swing voters, the moderates, not because you lost conservatives. You can spin that myth all day long if you want to, it doesn’t hold up to facts. Your base showed up. Our base showed up. The middle showed up, and told you to piss off.

Working up your base doesn’t matter. It’s shriveling to begin with. You can fire it up all you want, but moderates decide elections, and screaming wild far-right war cries at your base voters heading into 2008 will only result in an even more humiliating defeat when you nominate nutcases like Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Mitt Romney or, better yet, Newt Gingrich.

Face it, the only two guys that even have a chance of carrying you to victory are John McCain and Rudy Guiliani. McCain, who you despise to a degree that is simply irrational (while attacking Dems for ‘purging’ Lieberman from our party) and Guiliani, who is liberal on social issues and thus will never win the nomination, and we all know it.

So isn’t that telling? That while all of you are babbling about how “we need to get back to our roots”, in fact, the only two candidates who can win are the ones who are opposed by your “roots”.

Grebrook on November 15, 2006 at 1:46 AM

It is not as bad as people want to protray it. Well, I want to know which terrorist group endorsed the dems.

Ouabam on November 15, 2006 at 2:00 AM

Grebrook: “You people would be unhinged if you found an internal CNN….”

Yada, yada, yada.

[YAWN!]

We’re gonna have a pool as to WHICH “six to eight seriously corrupt Senators” Abramoff is going to rat on to the federal prosecutors. See the other thread as to whom the contenders are.

Then we’re going to have a pool as to HOW MANY REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS are going to get to APPOINT REPUBLICANS to fill the “suddenly vacant” seats in the Senate.

And the final pool we’re gonna have is HOW BIG THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in the Senate is going to be and WHO the new REPUBLICAN SENATE MAJORITY LEADER WILL BE — cause it won’t be Reid. He’s one going down for sure.

Go back to DU, troll. Where you can share the good news! Maybe you’ll find some comfort among you fellow morons.

Bub-bye…

georgej on November 15, 2006 at 2:04 AM

Grebrook, you’re proving our point that you didn’t win, but that we lost… As for this:

the deficit, Katrina

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the defecit, as a percentage of the economy, smaller than the average defecit? By the way, outside of media “record defecit” alarmism, the general public doesn’t have a fricken’ clue what that even means.

As for Katrina… let’s not even go there. Let’s not go in to how Louisiana’s emergency team was awaiting trial for $65 million in missing funds when the storm hit. Let’s not even get in to the fact that the conditions that hit NOLA were between Category 1 and 2 conditions, therefore the levees should have had no problem enduring them. Let’s not get in to the fact that no one warned of breaking/breaching, just overtopping (the difference in flooding between the two scenarios is immeasurable). Let’s not get in to the fact that Bush declared the emergency days before. Let’s not get in to the fact that the local and state government (DEMOCRATICALLY RUN) refused to order mandatory evactuations. Let’s not get in to the fact that the same DEMOCRATICALLY RUN local and state governments refused to implement their own evactuation plans, using school buses, etc. to evacuate citizens, leaving a situation that no one could be prepared for, especially given the unforseen flooding due to levees breaking, not just overtopping. Let’s not get in to the delay by Governor Blanco in requesting National Guard troops (admitted to on tape). Let’s not get in to the fact that most of the “horror” stories the media told were either overblown of flat out lies (i.e. bodies “piling up” at the Superdome). Let’s not get in to the fact that Blanco blocked the Red Cross (who had a convoy on the outskirts of the city, ready to roll in) from entering and heading to the Superdome, because she didn’t want to create “a magnet”.

Yeah, let’s not talk about that stuff.

As for people’s approval of Democrats? I would argue that it’s because the media has done a great job of hiding who these people are. I bet 9 out of 10 people you ask about Democrats making the case for WMD would have no clue that they argued the case for 13 years leading up to the war. I bet 9 out of 10 wouldn’t have a clue what Sandy Berger did. etc. etc. Hell, we’ve got a public overwhelmingly happy with their own financial situations, yet due to media coverage still rating the economy negatively. At least they’ve begun to recognize the booming economy, but we’ve seen month after month of only half the country realizing we aren’t in a recession. And how can many people think negatively about them when they don’t take a position on anything? Again, they win by default dude, not because they’ve done anything that people approve of.

RightWinged on November 15, 2006 at 2:15 AM

Clarification: the actual quote was “”six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators.”

And in 2008, it will be the DEMOCRATS who the voter will throw out — for losing Iraq AND massive corruption.

The Donkey Party is dead, fool. Enjoy your irrelevancy. We will.

georgej on November 15, 2006 at 2:17 AM

It is not as bad as people want to protray it. Well, I want to know which terrorist group endorsed the dems.

Ouabam on November 15, 2006 at 2:00 AM

I’m not familiar with you Ouabam, so I’m not sure if you’re joking or not… but if you’re seriously asking, first check out the cheering from the enemy of the Dem victory, and when you get done that, check out all of these terrorists endorsing the Dems pre-election. Unless of course you don’t consider Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and Islamic Jihad terrorists.

RightWinged on November 15, 2006 at 2:20 AM

(to clarify the “you” I mention in the last sentence of my last post isn’t “you” Oubam, it’s a “you” in general… again, because I’m not sure of where you’re actually coming from in your question)

RightWinged on November 15, 2006 at 2:22 AM

The poll results Grebrook cites certainly must disappoint Republicans. With time, however, it seems the difference in total fertility between the American Left and Right must be expected to help reverse the proportions the poll brought to light. Thus, I imagine anyone who, on balance, prefers the Republicans over the Democrats must be somewhat of two minds about abortion, opposing it for those who oppose it, and favoring it for those who favor it.

Kralizec on November 15, 2006 at 3:56 AM

Ok, how about Democrats winning 60-38 among the key 18-24 demographic? Sounds like a leftward tilt to me.
Grebrook on November 15, 2006 at 1:46 AM

You keep pounding that demographic as if it were the wave of the future and significant in more than the short-run.

Eventually most of those folks will get a real job, move out of their parent’s basements OR graduate, move out of their dormitories, get a real job. Then they will realize that liberalism is nothing but lies and false promises and false premises. Then, the more competent of them will become conservative and vote conservative.

Heck, it could even happen to you, if the doses of Kool-aid you have imbibed haven’t caused irreparable brain damage.

LegendHasIt on November 15, 2006 at 4:03 AM

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of the Democratic Party?

Favorable: 53%
Unfavorable: 35%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of the Republican Party?

Favorable: 38%
Unfavorable: 52%

How to lie with statistics!

Give the sheeple a hefty helping of pre processed information, constantly berate the current president, his administration, and the soldiers and the war effort against Muslims militant blood and death cult members, toss in ample supplies of favorable press for Democrats, being certain to filter news so that good news related to conservatives is obscured or note even mentioned, but also omit bad press related to the Democrats.

Repeat it often enough for the idiots to believe it as fact.

Shake well, give plenty of favorable, cheer leading for the Democrats, and act like you are reputable and neutral in reporting the news.

Then, add some slanted polls to put the finishing touches on your little engineered election coverage!

Finally, go out and celebrate the Democrat win and your part in it!

Isn’t life grand?

William

William2006 on November 15, 2006 at 4:46 AM

Ok, how about Democrats winning 60-38 among the key 18-24 demographic? Sounds like a leftward tilt to me.
Grebrook on November 15, 2006 at 1:46 AM

Sounds like it to me as well.

It is no surprise that all those years of left wing propaganda taught from the time a child first enters school, and all the way through college, and at the work place, and in Hollywood and the media, is finally paying off.

William

William2006 on November 15, 2006 at 4:49 AM

Hey Grebrook, who’s your pick for majority leader?

Heh heh heh…

Pablo on November 15, 2006 at 6:19 AM

Oh, and who does that key 18-24 demographic pick?

*snort*

Pablo on November 15, 2006 at 6:20 AM

At least here you won’t get banned for being the opposing party like I’ve been at some of your side’s sites.

At DU, you have to swear an oath to the Nancyboys, or else get kicked off.

JackM on November 15, 2006 at 9:31 AM

To add more fuel to the fire, here’s a letter for a soldier in Afghanistan about the Taliban declaring victory with the Democrats.

http://pereiraville.com/scribble/?p=2034

frankj on November 15, 2006 at 9:52 AM

I didn’t post here for 12 hours and you thought I left? — Grebrook

…not “thought”…hoped.

Puritan1648 on November 15, 2006 at 9:55 AM

Oh man,

Are we drinking cool aid now? Grebrook is right. We took a thumping. We have a lot of work to do. Yes, the country rejected us. Come on. Stop calling Grebrook names. He is right abotu the public perception. We need to change it.

I know, I know, but the facts are on our side. So? Since when did that matter? I means seriously. We need to figure out how to pursued the majority of Americans that what is true is true.

I see all of this talk about a new party. A new party? From what? You all think that we can win by forming a party out of 50% of the present party? Do you actually believe that we could siphon enough votes away from the Dems to make a new party? Bull balls. Can I say that Allah? Michelle broke the seal!

Now how are we going to pusude the majority of Americans to support our vision?

Rustyw on November 15, 2006 at 10:07 AM

Good post. That is really the point too AP. Not that all radicals are violent necessarily but that a large portion or even the majority are practicing radical beliefs.

I wonder how many people that read this post and follow the links are still going to tell us that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and wish us no harm. The research proves what so many of us have been trying to tell everyone since 9/11.

Protecting a religion that breeds violence by its very nature is suicide.

Cary on November 15, 2006 at 10:27 AM

Grebrook is right.

About what?

Pablo on November 15, 2006 at 10:37 AM

on our thumping

Rustyw on November 15, 2006 at 10:40 AM

Ok, how about Democrats winning 60-38 among the key 18-24 demographic? Sounds like a leftward tilt to me.

This just proves young people tend liberal. Nothing trendy in these numbers…

bspoogeferd on November 15, 2006 at 12:39 PM

Ok, how about Democrats winning 60-38 among the key 18-24 demographic? Sounds like a leftward tilt to me. — Grebrook

This just proves young people tend liberal. Nothing trendy in these numbers… — bspoogeferd

…the 18-24 demographic percentage is a testament to three things:

* Lousy public education, involving heavy doses of indoctrination. Our kids receive *APPALLING* history education, which is key in making more mature decisions.

* Political fashion among the entertainment products and popular culture aimed at that demographic.

* That 18-24 year olds don’t have the responsibilities that 40-50 year olds heve. They can afford to give the farm away when they have little to lose…and don’t try that old “military age” canard…it’s one thing to risk your own a$$, another to risk the future of your family. Been there/done that.

So, it’s not a “leftward tilt”. As bspoogeferd points out, it’s part of being young and, if I may add, inexperienced.

We live in a culture which diminishes the value of experience, as in “life experience”, substituting the squishier “personal experience”, as in “what’s true for me”.

When older folks, who’ve lived through a little, speak, young folks should listen. I’m 51, and I shut up when some of my own elders speak. Age isn’t necessarily an indicator of wisdom, but it *IS* an indicator of experience.

So, the “leftward tilt” of the 18-24 demographic an be simply summed up as childish inexperience, which they will grow out of…hopefully….

Puritan1648 on November 15, 2006 at 1:10 PM

Another factor that should be considered in the 18-24 demographic is the tendancy that age group has to ‘go with the flow’.

I just recently left the coveted 18-24 spot (25 this year). I’m about as conservative as a person can get (social conservative, economic libertarian) and most of my associates are shocked when they find out that I’m conservative.

Sure, I’ve been a registered Republican since I was 18 and voted conservative candidates and issues in every election I’ve been able to vote in, but, when I’m with a group of friends and colleagues (college at NYU, now working in Santa Monica, CA), I tend not to want to rock the boat or start arguments. Does this mean that I pretend that I agree with everything that’s being said? No. It simply means that I stay silent and people assume my silence is an endorsement (this saves me from being a liar, but does leave me being a gutless wonder).

Now, take a young person that is less well-grounded and less sure of their views than I am (not to toot my own horn, but, ‘finding myself’ has never been an issue for me like it seems to be for so many other people my age) and it is very easy to convince them to go along with the group and that the group is right (or left, as the case may be).

So, it is not shocking to me at all that young people are more likely to vote the same way at a higher rate than the rest of the electorate.

JadeNYU on November 15, 2006 at 2:52 PM

Rustyw wrote: “Yes, the country rejected us. Come on. Stop calling Grebrook names. He is right abotu the public perception. We need to change it.”

Well maybe yes, maybe no.

“the country rejected us” — every media pundit has been gleefully running with the meme that the country voted as they did because of unhappiness with BUSH and the Iraq War. And that they took it out on the Republicans.

But the COUNTRY did not give the Democrats a mandate to cut and run (about 3/4 do not want the US to cut and run). The country did not give the Democrats a mandate to give habeas corpus to terrorists we capture on the battle field. The country did not give the Democrats a mandate to terminate the NSA terrorist tracking programs or stopping the interrogation of prisoners.

And the country did not give the Democrats a mandate to repeal the military court commission legislation recently passed.

And the country did NOT give the Democrats a mandate to give amnesty to illegal aliens and grant them citizenship.

Yet. That is what the Democrats intend to do.

“Stop calling Grebrook names.” — please do not confuse applying the appropriate nomenclature to Grebrook with defaming him. He is what he is. And calling him what he is is neither insulting him nor abusing him. It’s just telling the truth.

“He is right abotu the public perception. We need to change it.” — nope. He’s making it up by lying with statistics. And he’s playing off of slanted and biased MSM induced perceptions. In other words, he is doing what a propagandist (also known as “spin artist”) is supposed to do.

What he is trying to do, Rusty, is MANUFACTURE CONSENT, by throwing bullshit up on the wall and trying to convince us that it’s a Picasso.

The “perception” that he is trying to get us to accept is the perception that the moonbat cultists at DU and DKOS have of us, not that of the American people.

George will (and others) had it right by saying that what this election did is move the country RIGHTWARD by electing moderate Democrats into office. Because of the Congressional seniority system LIBERAL Democrats are taking control — BUT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO MANDATE TO RULE AS LIBERALS.

No mandate to cut and run (just to find another solution than “stay the course”).

No mandate to terminate the NSA tracking programs — which the American public strongly approves of.

No mandate to give habeas to terrorists — which the public strongly opposes.

No mandate to repeal the military courts law — which the public wants to remain in place.

And no mandate to give amnestiy (and citizenship) to illegal aliens — which the public does NOT support, given the results of some of the ballot measures.

The leadership of the House and Senate are the OLD GUARD LIBERALS, who got the committee chairs and leadership positions by virtue of BEING OLD and sitting in Congress for a couple of decades — NOT because the public elected them to be in charge.

A “new direction” in Iraq is not the same as the wet dream wish list of liberalism.

georgej on November 15, 2006 at 6:34 PM

No mandate to give habeas to terrorists

as if everyone who’s picked up on the battlefield is a terrorist…those who are picked up mistakenly should have their rights protected,its an inconvenient fact but its there.
And as for the country moving to the right because some conservative democrats were elected…they’re still more to the left the Republicans..is the election of Casey “moving to the right” from Santorum? Quite the opposite.

crr6 on November 15, 2006 at 7:00 PM

You people would be unhinged if you found an internal CNN memo referring to the fight between Pence and Boehner as the “nut and the screw-up”.

Grebrook on November 14, 2006 at 11:23 PM

No, we would expect that…

lsutiger on November 15, 2006 at 7:33 PM

BTW…What do you Mean by “You People”?
RACIST!!!
=-)

lsutiger on November 15, 2006 at 7:35 PM