Text of the letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Jordanian-born terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at Riehl World View.

As the media has previously reported, Zawahiri outlined four steps toward the creation of a new Islamic nation and the destruction of Israel, and to bring about the Califate:

“Expel the Americans from Iraq.”

Establish an Islamic authority “over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e. in the Sunni areas, in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans …”

“Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq,” an apparent reference to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and perhaps also Egypt and the Persian Gulf states.

“The clash with Israel.”

Ed Koch explains how the New York Times Foolishly Denigrates War on Terror

The New York Times in two foolish editorials published on the next day, October 7, 2005, sought to denigrate the President instead of trying to add to our security by strengthening him in his leadership when he has taken on the ferocious, often insane, Islamic terrorists who believe they have the right to kill every infidel — Christians, Jews, Hindus, et.al. The terrorists want to reestablish the Caliphate from Spain to Indonesia and impose militant aggressive Islam on the world. Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, wrote a 6,000 word letter, not intended for public consumption, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Queda’s leader in Iraq, the latter having earlier called for the killing of civilian Shiittes in Iraq and the killing of Christians and Jews worldwide.

Shouldn’t the Times editorials have referred to those terrorist dangers and, in particular, the grand plan of bin Laden which the letter describes. The Times news article quoting the official who provided the briefing to the Times, reports the letter was a “comprehensive and chilling strategic vision for Qaeda.”

The editorials, instead of highlighting the terrorist’s letter, chose to criticize the President. The lead editorial hectored, “The president’s inability to grow beyond his big moment in 2001 is unnerving. But the fact that his handlers continue to encourage him to milk 9/11 is infuriating.” The second editorial denounced him for “talk[ing] so menacingly about Syria and Iran. It was also maddening to listen to him describe the perils that Iraq poses while denying that his policies set them in motion.”
. . .
Both the President’s speech and the letter from Zawahiri telling the world what is in store for it if the terrorists win were available on the same day, October 6th. The Times’ two editorials chose to attack President Bush, remaining silent on bin Laden, Zawahiri and Zarqawi. The President’s speech should have been praised by the Times, not denigrated. I believe that if Tony Blair had made it, The Times would have at the very least praised its eloquence.

Hizzonner also has a new proposal for Iraq.

All the NYT editorial board seems to propose, however, is “anything but Bush”. At least they still allow guest columnists like Berbard Haykel

The West needs to understand that reasoned debates take place within jihadi circles and that such reasoning can change minds. Indeed, Al Qaeda’s most recent statements, like that of Mr. Zawahiri, betray an anxiety about these splits within the movement and seek to reassert the legitimacy of suicide attacks both in Iraq and in the West.

THE West should refrain from interfering in this evolving debate. Western governments should not shut down jihadi Web sites or expel the movement’s dissenters, many of whom reside in the West or write from prisons in the Middle East. Rather, they should allow this process to take its course. By employing extreme tactics, the jihadis have laid bare the contradictions within their own movement. Their internal debates about suicide tactics are a sign of weakness – and of the fraying of the consensus Al Qaeda so carefully built over the last decade.

A consensus which continues to fray.