PDA

View Full Version : Obama: We should correct our course and fight the war on terror


Taco John
07-15-2007, 01:02 AM
Obama: Shift Troops to Fight al-Qaida

MIKE GLOVER | July 14, 2007 04:24 PM EST |

OELWEIN, Iowa — The U.S. should shift troops from Iraq to pursue al-Qaida along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday.

He said President Bush's war-fighting policies have left the United States at greater risk from terrorists. The first-term Illinois senator said decisions by the Republican president had allowed Osama bin Laden and his deputies to elude capture.

"We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we're on the wrong battlefield," Obama said. "America must urgently begin deploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy's home by destroying al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks and disrupting their funding."

Obama spoke during his 15th trip to Iowa, where precinct caucuses set for January begin the presidential nominating process. He opened his day with a rally on the shores of a lake in Oelwein before his later stops.

The senator focused on the threat of terrorism just days after a new U.S. intelligence assessment warned that al-Qaida has succeeded in rebuilding its strength.

"What I would say is that as a consequence of bad decisions we are more at risk and less safe than we should have been at this point, given all the resources we have spent and the U.S. lives that have been lost," Obama said.

Obama contended the Bush administration erred by choosing to fight in Iraq rather than concentrating on Afghanistan, where he said al-Qaida has rebuilt itself.

"They have entirely regrouped along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border," Obama said. "The threat of terrorism has actually increased and we've seen a massive spike in terrorist activity, in part because we did not finish the job in Afghanistan and were distracted by a war of choice in Iraq."

Obama stuck with the issue of terrorism during a later stop in Manchester, where about 300 people packed into a school gymnasium, even with a popular county fair just across the street.

"When I am president of the United States I will make this pledge: Nobody will work harder to go after those terrorists who will do the American people harm," Obama said. "But that requires a commander in chief who understands our troops need to be on the right battlefield, not the wrong battlefield."

Ahead on the schedule was an appearance with Democratic rivals Joe Biden and John Edwards at a workshop in Peosta.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070714/obama-terrorism/

Taco John
07-15-2007, 01:09 AM
I don't understand why folks like patteau would want to continue losing the war on terror when we could be fighting it at the source.

CHIEF4EVER
07-15-2007, 01:15 AM
I actually agree with Obama here. But I would take it a step further...I would make this move with no fanfare whatsoever and gain the strategic surprise necessary to make it work. One minute all quiet on the Afghani-Pakistani border, next minute all hell breaks loose.

Ultra Peanut
07-15-2007, 01:32 AM
But... but... Saddam. Anthrax. 9/11. WMDs. Nevar forget! Fight 'em over there so you don't fight 'em over here!

jAZ
07-15-2007, 01:52 AM
I actually agree with Obama here. But I would take it a step further...I would make this move with no fanfare whatsoever and gain the strategic surprise necessary to make it work. One minute all quiet on the Afghani-Pakistani border, next minute all hell breaks loose.
Why do you suddenly hate America?

We "America haters" have been saying this repeatedly for years now.

Whatever the case, welcome to the club. Pickup your ID card in the lobby.

HolmeZz
07-15-2007, 01:55 AM
The way we put more of a priority on Saddam Hussein and Iraq than Bin Laden is just so disgusting to me.

Logical
07-15-2007, 02:05 AM
We will know the mission is complete when patteeu joins our ranks. Until then press on and never give in or give up.

Ultra Peanut
07-15-2007, 02:09 AM
We will know the mission is complete when patteeu joins our ranks. That's when the terrorists have truly won.

patteeu
07-15-2007, 11:15 AM
We will know the mission is complete when patteeu joins our ranks. Until then press on and never give in or give up.

I suggest you buy a case of Snickers. ;)

patteeu
07-15-2007, 11:21 AM
I think it's good that presidential candidates are laying out their preferred approach to the GWoT. It will give our voters a clear leadership choice in the 2008 elections.

For a democrat, Obama's position isn't too bad. Of course, if elected, a huge portion of his constituency won't miss a beat as they pound the drums of retreat and start agitating for withdrawal from Afghanistan too.

What's Obama's position on Iraq now, Taco? Is he still in favor of keeping a substantial force in the northern part of the country?

StcChief
07-15-2007, 11:34 AM
I think it's good that presidential candidates are laying out their preferred approach to the GWoT. It will give our voters a clear leadership choice in the 2008 elections.

For a democrat, Obama's position isn't too bad. Of course, if elected, a huge portion of his constituency won't miss a beat as they pound the drums of retreat and start agitating for withdrawal from Afghanistan too.

What's Obama's position on Iraq now, Taco? Is he still in favor of keeping a substantial force in the northern part of the country?

Will see if he's a which way he is...

A which way is political wind blowing candidate

Or takes a stand by his convections.

ChiefaRoo
07-15-2007, 05:16 PM
Forgetting for a moment that Obamas domestic agenda is against almost everyone of my core beliefs I offer you lib. tea baggers the following.

Obama is a kid! He's too young and inexperienced. Having him as President would be like making the head of your local college ROTC the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

banyon
07-15-2007, 05:29 PM
Forgetting for a moment that Obamas domestic agenda is against almost everyone of my core beliefs I offer you lib. tea baggers the following.

Obama is a kid! He's too young and inexperienced. Having him as President would be like making the head of your local college ROTC the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Wow, I never thought of it that way! That's a really original insight! He is kinda young. Way less experience than W had when he became President. And like Dick Cheney has shown, having lots of experience always results in quality public service.

HolmeZz
07-15-2007, 09:17 PM
Obama is a kid!

http://www.hellblazer.com/media/BushFinger.gif

keg in kc
07-15-2007, 09:35 PM
Obama is a kid! He's too young and inexperienced. Having him as President would be like making the head of your local college ROTC the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.Sad thing is, that would be an enormous upgrade over the preschool dropout we have in office now.

Taco John
07-15-2007, 10:53 PM
Forgetting for a moment that Obamas domestic agenda is against almost everyone of my core beliefs I offer you lib. tea baggers the following.

Obama is a kid! He's too young and inexperienced. Having him as President would be like making the head of your local college ROTC the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.



Inexperience didn't stop you from voting for a complete moron whose life has been silver-spoonfed to him the last two times around. Do you really believe that arguments against Obama's experience from a Bush supporter are going to fly?

ChiefaRoo
07-16-2007, 03:29 AM
Inexperience didn't stop you from voting for a complete moron whose life has been silver-spoonfed to him the last two times around. Do you really believe that arguments against Obama's experience from a Bush supporter are going to fly?

Yes, at least Bush grew up in a family with a long history of political service going back to his Grandfather. Further, he was Gov. of a State the size of France. Obama has a lot less experience than W. did going in and his Senate tenure has been extremely short and unremarkable. Also, isn't Obama something like 5 to 6 years younger than Bush was when he started his first term? Too young IMO. However, I think it's a mute point to argue about it because Hillary is going to get the nomination but I thought I'd bring it up. At least with Hillary you know you've got some experience and fight in her (and her huge thighs). I think she's a gunt and if a woman was going to be Pres. I would want her to be a gunt. I just would prefer a woman like Maggie Thatcher who had a spine of steel versus Hillary's desire to socialize medicine and turn our country to the left.

Sully
07-16-2007, 07:22 AM
What's a mute point?

HolmeZz
07-16-2007, 12:51 PM
What's a mute point?

It's a malapropism, usually the result of being uneducated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapropism

I assume that's the tie that binds 'Roo and his President.

go bowe
07-16-2007, 06:12 PM
Forgetting for a moment that Obamas domestic agenda is against almost everyone of my core beliefs I offer you lib. tea baggers the following.

Obama is a kid! He's too young and inexperienced. Having him as President would be like making the head of your local college ROTC the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.the constitution specifes the minimun age of 35...

jfk was 43, the youngest so far...

hussein is already older at 45...

Taco John
07-16-2007, 06:37 PM
Yes, at least Bush grew up in a family with a long history of political service going back to his Grandfather.


Is this some sort of a joke? Surely you're laughing as hard when you're writing this, as I am when I'm reading it. Since when does anybody care about bloodline when it comes to selecting presidential candidates?

We're not looking for a king here, Bucakaroo.

go bowe
07-16-2007, 07:01 PM
just saw the second part of elizabeth too...

just amazing...

no wonder helen won an oscar for her performance...

just amazing...

penchief
07-16-2007, 07:18 PM
We will know the mission is complete when patteeu joins our ranks. Until then press on and never give in or give up.

How true. I never thought of it that way. Patteeu is like Bush's canary in the mine. When we here on the DC planet witness patteeu's concession, we will know the end is near for Bush & Cheney.

Seriously though, I would put pat and Bush on the same level when it comes to being defiant (or in denial).

Taco John
07-16-2007, 07:54 PM
Pat will remain delusional to the bitter end, and when it's over and done, he'll argue against history's judgement of the situation and blame other people (Democrats, liberals, etc.) and absolve The Decider of any wrong doing. Oh sure, he'll probably offer platitudes about Bush mistakes, but they'll pale in comparison to the accusations of "defeat in the face of victory" buzz phrases.

wazu
07-16-2007, 10:57 PM
Yes, at least Bush grew up in a family with a long history of political service going back to his Grandfather.

Wow.

wazu
07-16-2007, 10:59 PM
Is this some sort of a joke? Surely you're laughing as hard when you're writing this, as I am when I'm reading it. Since when does anybody care about bloodline when it comes to selecting presidential candidates?

We're not looking for a king here, Bucakaroo.

Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of people who care about it. It's why with 300 million U.S. citizens we keep seeing the same last names up there election after election.

HolmeZz
07-16-2007, 11:24 PM
Pedigree is important. Picking a President is really no different than picking a winner at the Belmont.

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 11:32 PM
Pedigree is important. Picking a President is really no different than picking a winner at the Belmont.

LMAO

ChiefaRoo
07-16-2007, 11:49 PM
Is this some sort of a joke? Surely you're laughing as hard when you're writing this, as I am when I'm reading it. Since when does anybody care about bloodline when it comes to selecting presidential candidates?

We're not looking for a king here, Bucakaroo.


Blood line? I didn't say anything about bloodline. I'm talking about experience. Try to stay focused.

Taco John
07-17-2007, 01:24 AM
Are you high or something? You can't keep your story straight. First you said it was about experience, until it was pointed out that George Bush didn't have any, and he became president. Then, you backpeddled and said it was about George Bush's family line going all the way back to his great grandfather or somesuch nonsense. When you got called on that, you denied making the claim and asked ME to stay focused?

Here's a tip: if you don't have an argument, then don't try making one anyway.

Logical
07-17-2007, 01:39 AM
Blood line? I didn't say anything about bloodline. I'm talking about experience. Try to stay focused.
Yes, at least Bush grew up in a family with a long history of political service going back to his Grandfather. Further, he was Gov. of a State the size of France. Obama has a lot less experience than W. did going in and his Senate tenure has been extremely short and unremarkable. Also, isn't Obama something like 5 to 6 years younger than Bush was when he started his first term? Too young IMO. However, I think it's a mute point to argue about it because Hillary is going to get the nomination but I thought I'd bring it up. At least with Hillary you know you've got some experience and fight in her (and her huge thighs). I think she's a gunt and if a woman was going to be Pres. I would want her to be a gunt. I just would prefer a woman like Maggie Thatcher who had a spine of steel versus Hillary's desire to socialize medicine and turn our country to the left.
What do you mean you did not talk about blood line, what are you doing in this post?

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 01:46 AM
Inexperience didn't stop you from voting for a complete moron whose life has been silver-spoonfed to him the last two times around. Do you really believe that arguments against Obama's experience from a Bush supporter are going to fly?

Bush has a degree from Yale and a Masters degree from Harvard He was also an F-102 Fighter Pilot and you call him a moron? Why don't you tell us all about your accomplishments by comparison. I doubt you measure up.

Regarding Obama, he's only 45 years old and while he has academic credentials he doesn't have much of a political track record. I wouldn't vote for him regardless but I think most smart libs realize that he's too young to be Pres. By the way did you guys know Obama's mom is from Wichita? I just read that in his bio.

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 01:49 AM
What do you mean you did not talk about blood line, what are you doing in this post?

I'm simply saying he's learned a lot about the business of politics by growing up with it going on all around him. I think that gives a guy some practical knowledge. For you and anyone else to imply it means I'm giving Bush some kind of title of Royalty or privlege is silly.

Logical
07-17-2007, 01:52 AM
I'm simply saying he's learned a lot about the business of politics by growing up with it going on all around him. I think that gives a guy some practical knowledge. For you and anyone else to imply it means I'm giving Bush some kind of title of Royalty or privlege is silly.

Well I guess we should elect Ted Kennedy after all he has a fantastic family history of power politics.

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 01:54 AM
Well I guess we should elect Ted Kennedy after all he has a fantastic family history of power politics.

Teddy tried and failed to get the nomination back in the day but he couldn't even beat Dukaka. Even if he would of gotten the nomination Reagan would of shredded him.

HolmeZz
07-17-2007, 01:56 AM
I don't know what Bush has shown in his time in office that would make you think he had legitimate experience beforehand.

He has no clue how to even run a war and he's been awful in dealing with the international community.

HolmeZz
07-17-2007, 02:01 AM
Even if he would of gotten the nomination Reagan would of shredded him.

But Reagan didn't have the political lineage and experience Kennedy did!

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 03:10 AM
I don't know what Bush has shown in his time in office that would make you think he had legitimate experience beforehand.

He has no cclue how to run a war and he's been awful in dealing with the international community.

I agree with half your post. I think Bush had a disdain for diplomatic types and the International community as a whole when he was voted in originally in 2000. If 9/11 wouldn't of happened I think Bush would of been much more of a domestic oriented Pres. and International affairs would of been secondary. After 9/11 he just bulled ahead and did his cowboy thing in Iraq after doing a fantastic job in Afghanistan. I don't really like the way he handled Schroeder and Chirac. He let them set him up as the bad guy and gave apologists for terrorists in Euroland and the US appeasers here at home a diversionary target instead of keeping the spotlight on the AQ types.

Regarding the war. I wasn't a big fan of invading Iraq at the time but I think I understand why he did it, although Bush has/had access to way more intel then we ever will (right and wrong intel). Now that we're there it's as good a place as any to fight the AQ types and as I've said before were going to be in Iraq for years after Bush is gone. The stakes are just to high to leave. Has Bush and the military made mistakes? Sure, but mistakes get made in every war because wars don't ever go as planned. I have no doubt our soldiers are the best and they will win by beating the insurgency even if it takes years to do it. We will kill them at a rate orders of magnitude higher than they will kill our guys which will keep them relatively weak. Eventually the Muslim world will realize that being silent while fanatics in their name try to destroy the West while watching their own peoples being destroyed is a mistake and they will come around. If they don't and we pull out of that region the next war will have much higher stakes and will most likely involve the US reacting to some kind of WMD attack somewhere in the West 5, 10 or 15 years from now. That's the war I don't want to fight because I'm not willing to risk London or NYC and the economic disruption that would damage the entire world economy. The options facing a President reacting to this level of violence would be limited and would demand a massive response or we'll lose and when I say lose it would mean the potential cripppling of the economic engines that power the worlds and the US economy which in turn could lead to instability in the order that the US offers the world both economically and militarily.

The fact is our military and the rest of the West since WW2 has kept the relative peace in every corner of this backward little planet of ours. The US is a Superpower but we are a benevolent power. If we lose our edge and trade WMD for WMD then all free peoples lose. It simply can't ever be allowed to come to that. No, this is a war that must be won and it will take years if not decades to do it and the troops we lose will only have died in vain if we abandon the mission to keep the economies of the world functioning and the US and the Western Worlds values at the helm while we protect countries like Japan, Australia, Canada and work with emerging powers like India and China to democratize and bring them into the fold where eventually they will be fully democratic nations with prosperous peoples and a stake in the big game of human progress.

The only thing that scares me is an emerging threat that could destroy the progress humans have made in the past 100 years. Life span, communications, education, medicine and technology have made incredible leaps forward. The AQ types want to erase these gains and if they become strong enough to do it is there any doubt they would use WMD's someday? What do you guys think a WMD going off in any major city around the world would do to worldwide trade and the economies of the West and the East? If you erased Tokyo, NYC, London, Paris, Berlin, any one of them overnight what kind of panic would it send around the world? For example how many airlines would cancel or suspend orders for Boeing planes if the world wasn't safe for international travel in the publics mind? How many thousands would Boeing lay off to keep from going deep into the red? Now imagine that kind of reaction in every business large and small around the US and the world and how that would affect the families of those who suddenly found themselves out of work.

Now, I realize that some of you may claim I'm throwing out the WMD scare card. I mean, John Edwards says the war on terror is just a bumper sticker slogan. I also acknowledge that it would feel a lot better in the short term if we just packed up our guys in the ME and brought them back home or put them on ships. Man it sure would be nice not to have to watch and hear about the last IED in Iraq that killed some of our guys. The media would quit putting it in our faces and we could all go on with our lives. Well, that would be wrong. If 9/11 taught us anything it's that we can't ignore these guys whether they're in the Horn of Africa, Iraq or New Jersey for that matter. Why do some of you instinctively say a WMD attack is that unrealistic? The US split the atom in the early 1940's, followed by the Russians, Brits, French, Chinese, Pakistanis and the Indians. What makes you think radical AQ types won't eventually have some of this 60+ year old technology? and if they have it will they not deploy it?

The fact is these people need to be kept on the run, hiding in caves and spending their time worrying about Predators, F-22's, cruise missiles, thermobaric bombs and US soldiers and marines so they don't have a place to set up shop for the "Big Show".

I think it's time to move beyond Bush and Blair and all this bullshit we've kicked around for the past several years. Blair is gone and Bush will be gone in less than 2 years. We need to start thinking not just about the next Presidential election but about the stance and role the US and it's allies will continue to play in a world made more unstable by asymetric threats on a large scale. How will we combat these threats while competing with a growing China who may or may not be a force for good in the short term? These are big questions gang.

My position is the best hope for the world has been and will remain a strong US leadership position to keep order and to help other nations find their place in the world as they develop and become powerful. We must lead because if we don't another power will and they may not believe in things like Freedom of Speech, the rule of law and the rights of the individual. Like it or not the responsibility falls to the Western Democracies. We're the only ones with the power to keep this train moving in the right direction. If we choose to become less than what we are or lose the will to fight for what we believe in then we've simply started the countdown clock to our eventual demise. I for one don't want that to happen.

HolmeZz
07-17-2007, 03:26 AM
Why don't you post like that more often?

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 03:36 AM
Why don't you post like that more often?

Well, first of all it took me over and hour to write it. Secondly, this is just a message board and I enjoy the juvenile back and forth as much as the next guy whether it's about politics or whether it's about Go Chiefs ambigious sexuality.

That being said I meant every word I wrote and it's exactly how I see the world from an overall strategic point of view after having been fortunate enough to travel on business to several places in Europe, the ME, Asia and Latin America. If I was a politician that post would be part of my cornerstone speech explaining my worldview and the challenges we all face.

By the way thanks for the compliment.

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 04:28 AM
But Reagan didn't have the political lineage and experience Kennedy did!

True but Reagan was a great President and a fantastic champion of a democracy and tremendous leader of the Cold War. Maggie Thatcher was the only leader of her time that could match Reagan and they were lucky to have each other at a crucial time in US history. These two leaders are heroes of mine. I miss Ronaldus Maximus. He was a great man.

patteeu
07-17-2007, 07:25 AM
Pat will remain delusional to the bitter end, and when it's over and done, he'll argue against history's judgement of the situation and blame other people (Democrats, liberals, etc.) and absolve The Decider of any wrong doing. Oh sure, he'll probably offer platitudes about Bush mistakes, but they'll pale in comparison to the accusations of "defeat in the face of victory" buzz phrases.

Of course I disagree with some of the characterizations, but this is basically correct. I think OBL underestimated our ability to take casualties and maintain resolve in a fight, but in the end, he was on the right track. We are a weak nation and it's not because of people like Bush and Cheney.

patteeu
07-17-2007, 07:30 AM
Are you high or something? You can't keep your story straight. First you said it was about experience, until it was pointed out that George Bush didn't have any, and he became president. Then, you backpeddled and said it was about George Bush's family line going all the way back to his great grandfather or somesuch nonsense. When you got called on that, you denied making the claim and asked ME to stay focused?

Here's a tip: if you don't have an argument, then don't try making one anyway.

Don't be ridiculous. His argument was completely reasonable and had nothing to do with genetics or blood lines. On his own, GWBush (6 years as governor of Texas) had more relevant experience than Obama (state legislator and less than 1 term as a US Senator), but on top of that he had the experience of being exposed to and working for his father while he was President.

patteeu
07-17-2007, 07:39 AM
I agree with half your post. ...

I repped you too early and now I can't do it for this fantastic post. I couldn't agree more. It was well worth the hour it took to put it together. Thanks for the effort. :clap:

Taco John
07-17-2007, 10:50 AM
I agree with half your post....

.....snip.....

We're the only ones with the power to keep this train moving in the right direction. If we choose to become less than what we are or lose the will to fight for what we believe in then we've simply started the countdown clock to our eventual demise. I for one don't want that to happen.



It's a good post, but I still don't see a reason why we need to be in Iraq in order to keep the terrorists on the run. Confusing the issue in Iraq with keeping Al Queda on the run does a disservice to the truth, which is the fact that Al Queda wasn't in Iraq in the first place, and the group that is there now is only loosely connected to the real Al Queda, who have taken refuge in Pakistan (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/17/terror/main3065010.shtml). We took our eye off the ball on terrorism, and went on a journey to Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/), and the result is that we are failing on TWO war fronts (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/16/pakistan.alqaeda/). Not because of democrats or liberals. Not because our soldiers aren't doing a good job. The sole reason we are are failing in both wars we are fighting is because our leadership didn't listen to the generals during the build-up to war and underestimated the difficulty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm) that it would take.

There is no doubt that we need to be vigilant in the war on terror. What is in doubt is Bush's decision to take a detour these last five years and plot a course that has made Al Queda stronger than it was before 9/11.

Radar Chief
07-17-2007, 10:56 AM
It's a good post, but I still don't see a reason why we need to be in Iraq in order to keep the terrorists on the run. Confusing the issue in Iraq with keeping Al Queda on the run does a disservice to the truth, which is the fact that Al Queda wasn't in Iraq in the first place, and the group that is there now is only loosely connected to the real Al Queda, who have taken refuge in Pakistan (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/17/terror/main3065010.shtml). We took our eye off the ball on terrorism, and went on a journey to Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/), and the result is that we are failing on TWO war fronts (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/16/pakistan.alqaeda/). Not because of democrats or liberals. Not because our soldiers aren't doing a good job. The sole reason we are are failing in both wars we are fighting is because our leadership didn't listen to the generals during the build-up to war and underestimated the difficulty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm) that it would take.

There is no doubt that we need to be vigilant in the war on terror. What is in doubt is Bush's decision to take a detour these last five years and plot a course that has made Al Queda stronger than it was before 9/11.

When your premise starts out with a lie, you’re doing a “disservice” to the same “truth” you claim to support.

BucEyedPea
07-17-2007, 10:59 AM
When your premise starts out with a lie, you’re doing a “disservice” to the same “truth” you claim to support.
Some can't tell the difference between a lie and the truth....this is pure delusion....a state of denial....detached from reality that only the remaining true NeoCons hold to.

Taco John
07-17-2007, 11:00 AM
When your premise starts out with a lie, you’re doing a “disservice” to the same “truth” you claim to support.


You can take that up with the Pentagon (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html)

My premise is well grounded.

BucEyedPea
07-17-2007, 11:05 AM
You can take that up with the Pentagon (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html)

My premise is well grounded.
:thumb:

As well as the 9/11 Commission Report, CIA whistleblowers who said their arms were twisted to create intel to suit policy, and a number of former binLaden CI CIA agents who now write regularly against this administration and it's supporting neo-crazy conspiracy theorists.

Adept Havelock
07-17-2007, 11:18 AM
You can take that up with the Pentagon (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html)

My premise is well grounded.


Aha! It's just empty complaining from all the DU types over at the Christian Science Monitor. ROFL LMAO

Radar Chief
07-17-2007, 11:41 AM
You can take that up with the Pentagon (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html)

My premise is well grounded.

You sure about that? Looks to me like you’d do your premise good to read the report yourself rather than take this editorialized version of it and claim to know everything based solely on it.
Here’s another opinion of the same report.

Al-Qaeda tea-parties in Iraq?
Jerry Stratton
Friday, April 6, 2007
R. Jeffrey Smith’s Washington Post article Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted is a classic example of what Orwell called “euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness”.
Reading the headline, you might think the article says Hussein had no pre-war ties to al-Qaeda. A cursory read might even make you think the article says Hussein had no pre-war ties to terrorism. On closer examination, it’s unclear what, exactly, the article is saying. How could we rewrite it to make it more clear?
“Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited” would become “Pentagon report confirms contacts existed”.
“Hussein’s regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq” would become “Hussein’s regime was cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq”.
“There were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials” would become “there were substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials”.
“It lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups” would become “Iraq forged long-term relationships with other terrorist groups”. It would probably also become “and was feeling out a long-term relationship with al-Qaeda”. (See below.)
“Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations,” is so vague that it’s hard to say what it really means. Were there conclusive signs of cooperation on general terrorist operations? Were there inconclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations? “Operations” is another term Orwell would eschew, although we probably can’t blame the Post for it. They’re either terrorist attacks or terrorist tea parties but, unless they cooperated on terrorist medical care, “operation” is a euphemism designed to obscure what we’re really talking about.
Either way, this part of the article does seem to say that “there were signs of cooperation”.
“Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories alleged by Feith's office” would instead say “Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated in some categories but not in others”, and then include a list of those categories that Iraq and al-Qaeda did cooperate in.
“Zarqawi… was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents” sounds like it means something on a casual read, but what does it actually say? “Associated” is another euphemism designed to obscure. What was the nature of Zarqawi’s association with al-Qaeda? Tea-parties again? Or terrorist attacks? For that matter, what’s an “adherent” in this context? And was it Zarqawi alone or his terrorist group who associated with al-Qaeda?
This could mean anything from “Zarqawi led a terrorist group that worked with al-Qaeda” to “Zarqawi, who knew people who worshipped al-Qaeda…”
Finally,
The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.
Take a closer look at this. This was all one paragraph in the original. Is it merely incredibly poor writing, or is it actually saying that there is evidence that Iraq was training al-Qaeda terrorists on weapons of mass destruction? Is it an inadvertent juxtaposition of two unrelated thoughts? Is the Post reporting from press releases again or looking at the original document?
Here’s a short rewrite of the Post article.
Hussein’s Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Confirmed
Pentagon report confirms contacts existed
Hussein’s regime was cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There were substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials. Iraq forged long-term relationships with other terrorist groups and was likely feeling out a long-term relationship with al-Qaeda. There were signs that Hussein cooperated with al-Qaeda on some terrorist attacks. Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated in other categories also, including blah, blah, and blah.
Iraq may also have provided training to al-Qaeda members on the use of chemical and biological warfare.
This rewrite doesn’t contradict the original article. Remove the euphemisms and sheer cloudy adjectives, and it appears that this is what the report the Post is quoting actually said.

Radar Chief
07-17-2007, 11:48 AM
:thumb:

As well as the 9/11 Commission Report, CIA whistleblowers who said their arms were twisted to create intel to suit policy, and a number of former binLaden CI CIA agents who now write regularly against this administration and it's supporting neo-crazy conspiracy theorists.

While the 9/11 Commission found no evidence of a “collaborative link” they went on to outline multiple meetings between the two.
Former director of the CIA claims to have seen evidence that up to 200 al Qaeda landed in Iraq as a result of our actions in Afghanistan.
We know this to be at least partially true due to the presence of several identified al Qaeda operatives in Iraq before we invaded.

You can deny this all day long, demagogue it as just some NeoCon drivel since that’s what you appear to do anyway, but it doesn’t change the facts no matter how much you want it too.

Taco John
07-17-2007, 12:08 PM
You sure about that? Looks to me like you’d do your premise good to read the report yourself rather than take this editorialized version of it and claim to know everything based solely on it.


We can quibble over which editorial is correct, but what we can't quibble over is this:

The CIA and DIA have disavowed any ‘mature, symbiotic’ relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.

Facts are still facts.

Radar Chief
07-17-2007, 12:45 PM
We can quibble over which editorial is correct, but what we can't quibble over is this:

The CIA and DIA have disavowed any ‘mature, symbiotic’ relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.

Facts are still facts.

What exactly does "mature, symbiotic" mean? And which part of the CIA? As I pointed out, the former director of the CIA claims to have seen evidence that up to 200 al Qaeda fled to Iraq from Afghanistan as a result of our actions there. The CIA doesn’t speak with the unified voice you seem to be claiming they do.

Besides Taco, I didn’t post that editorial to claim mine’s better than your’s, I did it to point out that they’re both just opinions of a report. It’d be better to read the report itself and draw your own conclusions rather than take as fact the opinion of someone else.

Taco John
07-17-2007, 12:57 PM
I think I stated my opinion pretty clearly. The sole reason we are are failing in both wars we are fighting is because our leadership didn't listen to the generals during the build-up to war and underestimated the difficulty that it would take. What is in doubt is Bush's decision to take a detour these last five years and plot a course that has made Al Queda stronger than it was before 9/11.

go bowe
07-17-2007, 01:12 PM
While the 9/11 Commission found no evidence of a “collaborative link” they went on to outline multiple meetings between the two.
Former director of the CIA claims to have seen evidence that up to 200 al Qaeda landed in Iraq as a result of our actions in Afghanistan.
We know this to be at least partially true due to the presence of several identified al Qaeda operatives in Iraq before we invaded.

You can deny this all day long, demagogue it as just some NeoCon drivel since that’s what you appear to do anyway, but it doesn’t change the facts no matter how much you want it too.facts are facts, but the same set of facts can be interpreted differently, depending on one's pov...

if i understand this right, there were some meetings, some overtures perhaps, but how many of those led to anything of substance? more than a handful? less than my next cup of coffee?

i don't doubt that aq was in iraq before the invasion in terms of the 200 or more from afghanistan...

and i'm convinced that there were a small number of aq in iraq for various reasons before the invasion of iraq, but they didn't accomplish much, if anything, afaik...

it's all a matter of pov...

well, mostly...

stevieray
07-17-2007, 01:29 PM
ya, that's right, because we've always captured every leader in past wars....

...and of course Bush is responsible for whatever AQ does, because they can't be held accountable for their own actions.

Families shoud stop drug interventions of their own, because if the family member they try to help fails or has any kind of relapse, you can always blame the the people that tried to help make their lives better.

go bowe
07-17-2007, 01:51 PM
ya, that's right, because we've always captured every leader in past wars....

...and of course Bush is responsible for whatever AQ does, because they can't be held accountable for their own actions.

Families shoud stop drug interventions of their own, because if the family member they try to help fails or has any kind of relapse, you can always blame the the people that tried to help make their lives better.no leader has ever destroyed the wtc or damaged the pentagon before...

i'm for moving half the troops there and capturing osama, pakistan border be damned...

in fact, why are elements of the 10th mountain division in the desert when they should be in the mountains of afghanistan?

Cochise
07-17-2007, 01:55 PM
I think that it's easy to tell what the Democratic candidates, either of them, will probably do.

They would secure defeat and get out of Iraq without a second to lose, but under the auspices of some kind of redeployment or something other than bringing them all straight home, for the sake of saving political face and spinning it as 'fighting smarter' rather than a retreat.

Cut and run is the last thing I want us to do, but at least if we are going to cut and run, let's really do it. Don't send them on some goose chase designed to make the Democratic party not look weak on defense. If we're going to bring them home then do it, don't send them to parade around in the afghan mountains for a year. I mean this 100%, if our national policy is to be cut & run, let's not act like a bunch of pansies or try to pretend we're something we aren't, let's commit ourselves and do it and live with our choice.

They might be moved to boy scout missions such as Darfur (an irony considering the humanitarian distaster we would create if we left Iraq tail-between), which IMO generally suits most liberals' idea of the military's purpose beyond last-ditch defense - maybe even a few in Afghanistan. But before much time passes, the loony left will take over the agenda of whomever the president is, and the war on terror will be abandoned altogether.

Leaving Al Queda alone, submitting to their demands that we leave Iraq will not pacify them. It will only prove right what Bin Laden said about why he wasn't afraid of us, what Somalia showed him about America, that we don't have the stomach for a conflict where losses are possible.

And the whole set up has the insurance policy that if our submission and retreat policies result in another 9/11 style attack, they will all just blame it on Bush anyway. Even after we got out, even if we did everything the Democrats said we needed to do to be safe, we've been attacked again, so it will be that it was just revenge for George Bush.

See what I mean? They can't lose, in their minds. If we get attacked again, no big deal, they are keeping the powder they need for that one quite dry.

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 01:58 PM
I think I stated my opinion pretty clearly. The sole reason we are are failing in both wars we are fighting is because our leadership didn't listen to the generals during the build-up to war and underestimated the difficulty that it would take. What is in doubt is Bush's decision to take a detour these last five years and plot a course that has made Al Queda stronger than it was before 9/11.

Taco. We aren't losing. The media and the pols who are invested in withdrawal are creating that impression. We may need to draw down or build up troops in a given area and tactics may change but make no mistake we are winning, meaning we are killing way more of them then they are killing us. AQ is not 10' tall and invulnerable, that is an illusion. If we stick to it in all regions of the world where AQ attacks we will slowly wring their collective necks. We need to pound them wherever they pop up that's how you fight a successful counter insurgency. We are going to win this unless the Pols quit listening to the military. As I said earlier it will be a relief when Bush moves out as it will turn the page on all the political BS and recent history that has been going on starting with the 2000 election. We need to stay strong as a nation and keep up the fight for as long as it takes.

Radar Chief
07-17-2007, 02:02 PM
facts are facts, but the same set of facts can be interpreted differently, depending on one's pov...

if i understand this right, there were some meetings, some overtures perhaps, but how many of those led to anything of substance? more than a handful? less than my next cup of coffee?

i don't doubt that aq was in iraq before the invasion in terms of the 200 or more from afghanistan...

and i'm convinced that there were a small number of aq in iraq for various reasons before the invasion of iraq, but they didn't accomplish much, if anything, afaik...

it's all a matter of pov...

well, mostly...

That’s a fairly reasonable take.
There is no doubt al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded, there is just too much evidence of it to logically deny. So the question then becomes how much did Saddam cooperate with them? None? Some, as in didn’t mind their presence but wasn’t going to work out attack plans with them? Or did he go full boat and encourage their presence with the intention of working with them?
IMO it’s the later, but I’ll admit the evidence I’ve seen leads to that conclusion though it is not conclusive on it’s own.
And even if we don’t ever find rock solid evidence of Saddam’s intentions WRT al Qaeda, isn’t part of the GWOT to be proactive? Don’t we want to bust up these rat’s nests of terrorists before they can organize and attack us?

stevieray
07-17-2007, 02:10 PM
no leader has ever destroyed the wtc or damaged the pentagon before...


And before Hitler, no one had ever exterminated 6 million Jewish people.

Even so, we are in unchartered territory...raisng the bar to something that generally doen't happen till after the conflict is nothing but a politcal ploy to claim failure, all in the name of presidential bid...do you really think that we aren't actively after him? I don't.

Cochise
07-17-2007, 02:11 PM
Taco. We aren't losing. The media and the pols who are invested in withdrawal are creating that impression. We may need to draw down or build up troops in a given area and tactics may change but make no mistake we are winning, meaning we are killing way more of them then they are killing us. AQ is not 10' tall and invulnerable, that is an illusion. If we stick to it in all regions of the world where AQ attacks we will slowly wring their collective necks. We need to pound them wherever they pop up that's how you fight a successful counter insurgency. We are going to win this unless the Pols quit listening to the military. As I said earlier it will be a relief when Bush moves out as it will turn the page on all the political BS and recent history that has been going on starting with the 2000 election. We need to stay strong as a nation and keep up the fight for as long as it takes.

It's interesting that only 2/3 of America thinks we should retreat. After 4 years of universally, 100% negative media coverage from before the war started to before events happen, only about 30% of the public have been swayed. You'd think that as hard as the media has been working on this, a lot more people would have switched sides than have so far.

DaKCMan AP
07-17-2007, 02:13 PM
ya, that's right, because we've always captured every leader in past wars....



How many of the past wars does the Prez actually vow to capture the leader "dead or alive"??

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 02:18 PM
It's interesting that only 2/3 of America thinks we should retreat. After 4 years of universally, 100% negative media coverage from before the war started to before events happen, only about 30% of the public have been swayed. You'd think that as hard as the media has been working on this, a lot more people would have switched sides than have so far.

It really is. I admit personally when I see a TV report about and IED killing some US soliders it gets me down a bit. I want to reach out to those guys and either make them invulnerable somehow or to bring them out of harms way. I think my reaction is the same as many people as it's just a normal emotion to have empathy for the guys who are laying it on the line while back in the US were safe and sound. That being said that emotion while well intentioned it is the wrong reaction. We have to stay at it.

IMO opinion even Hillary realizes this. She's a political heavyweight eventhough she is socialist IMO. I don't believe she would just bring our guys home and let the chips fall where they may. The Joint Chiefs and the rest of the Govt. will show her scenarios that would endanger the future safety of the US itself and in the end I do believe she wants to keep us safe. That being said I hope Fred Thompson runs and wipes the floor with her.

stevieray
07-17-2007, 02:19 PM
How many of the past wars does the Prez actually vow to capture the leader "dead or alive"??

He's wrong for making a pledge to the country?

Cochise
07-17-2007, 02:20 PM
IMO opinion even Hillary realizes this. She's a political heavyweight eventhough she is socialist IMO. I don't believe she would just bring our guys home and let the chips fall where they may. The Joint Chiefs and the rest of the Govt. will show her scenarios that would endanger the future safety of the US itself and in the end I do believe she wants to keep us safe.

I don't agree with this at all. I think the only difference between the strategies of the Democratic candidates is what sort of veil will be cast over the retreat strategy.

You know better than this, rather than using the military when it's necessary to attempt to create greater, lasting peace through democracy around the world, the only reason liberals want to use the military for its intended purpose is to either avoid looking weak or on some kind of humanitarian mission.

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 02:29 PM
I don't agree with this at all. I think the only difference between the strategies of the Democratic candidates is what sort of veil will be cast over the retreat strategy.

You know better than this, rather than using the military when it's necessary to attempt to create greater, lasting peace through democracy around the world, the only reason liberals want to use the military for its intended purpose is to either avoid looking weak or on some kind of humanitarian mission.

I agree they've done that in the past but that was all pre 9/11. I hope that's not the case with Clinton but you may be right. If you are then it is critical that a Republican wins the '08 election.

Taco John
07-17-2007, 02:33 PM
Cut and run is the last thing I want us to do, but at least if we are going to cut and run, let's really do it. Don't send them on some goose chase designed to make the Democratic party not look weak on defense. If we're going to bring them home then do it, don't send them to parade around in the afghan mountains for a year. I mean this 100%, if our national policy is to be cut & run, let's not act like a bunch of pansies or try to pretend we're something we aren't, let's commit ourselves and do it and live with our choice.


Haha! "If we don't do it the Republican way, let's cut and run fully! Let's not protect our nation from the real threat that out there. Let's retreat fully so that we we can blame the democrats and absolve Bush of any blame for taking his eye off the ball!"

You're not really interested in preserving America's security. You just want to save political face for Bush.

We had Al Queda and the Taliban on the run. Now they're both stronger than ever (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/16/pakistan.alqaeda/). Who is it that is weak on defense here?

DaKCMan AP
07-17-2007, 02:34 PM
He's wrong for making a pledge to the country?

He's wrong for not keeping it.

noa
07-17-2007, 02:35 PM
I think that it's easy to tell what the Democratic candidates, either of them, will probably do.

They would secure defeat and get out of Iraq without a second to lose, but under the auspices of some kind of redeployment or something other than bringing them all straight home, for the sake of saving political face and spinning it as 'fighting smarter' rather than a retreat.

Like ChiefaRoo and others, including myself, have been saying, there isn't a serious candidate for president who can come up with a plan for TOTAL withdrawal from Iraq. It simply won't happen. Whatever the Dems do if they win, I guarantee you it won't be withdrawal of every single soldier from Iraq. We will have a presence in that country for many years to come. So, I think your fear about what the Dems will do is a bit overstated. They will withdraw many troops, claim an end to the war, and yadayadayada, but they won't totally abandon the country and the billion dollar, strategically-located bases that we've invested in.

Cut and run is the last thing I want us to do, but at least if we are going to cut and run, let's really do it. Don't send them on some goose chase designed to make the Democratic party not look weak on defense. If we're going to bring them home then do it, don't send them to parade around in the afghan mountains for a year. I mean this 100%, if our national policy is to be cut & run, let's not act like a bunch of pansies or try to pretend we're something we aren't, let's commit ourselves and do it and live with our choice.

You say goose chase as if deploying our troops to other areas of concern is a bad thing. As if staying in Iraq is the only way to fight terrorists. It isn't. We need to be engaging elsewhere if we are going to take this fight seriously. That means finding a way to go after terrorists in Pakistan. That means finding a way to crush this Al Qaeda resurgence in Afghanistan. That means being serious about every threat, not just the one that the neocons pointed their fingers at.

They might be moved to boy scout missions such as Darfur (an irony considering the humanitarian distaster we would create if we left Iraq tail-between), which IMO generally suits most liberals' idea of the military's purpose beyond last-ditch defense - maybe even a few in Afghanistan. But before much time passes, the loony left will take over the agenda of whomever the president is, and the war on terror will be abandoned altogether.

I don't care which politician you are talking about, NO ONE IS GOING TO ABANDON THE WAR ON TERROR. The Dems might have a different take on the strategy, and you are entitled to call them wrong, or misguided, but don't claim that they are going to abandon this fight. That would require believing that if a Dem was elected, all of the non-political leaders of our defense infrastructure (including cops, FBI, CIA, NSA, military, etc.) would just give up their mission because there's a new party in the White House. This is NOT true. John Edwards doesn't want to call it a war on terror (and there is some validity in that argument), but that doesn't mean the Democrats want to ignore the threats our nation faces. Any party, any president, will take the threats to this nation seriously.

Leaving Al Queda alone, submitting to their demands that we leave Iraq will not pacify them. It will only prove right what Bin Laden said about why he wasn't afraid of us, what Somalia showed him about America, that we don't have the stomach for a conflict where losses are possible.

Again, withdrawal from Iraq doesn't mean total abandonment in this struggle. Its not like the Dems want to give up hunting down Al Qaeda and going after the terrorists. They just don't want to be in this war because they view it as setting back our cause more than helping it.
And if we leave troops in Iraq, which is virtually guaranteed, then we will be able to address Al Qaeda in Iraq as well, because their numbers aren't as big as some people think.

Look, we can disagree on strategies, but it really bothers me when people shovel this crap that the Dems will give up on the War on Terror.
Stupid lines like Rudy saying the Repubs want to stay on offense while the Dems want to go on defense...
Stupid arguments like saying electing a Dem will cause another terrorist attack...
Stupid lines like saying the Dems want to go back to pre-9/11 days...

That's just meaningless rhetoric, and I really hope people don't buy that crap.

Radar Chief
07-17-2007, 02:39 PM
He's wrong for not keeping it.

When was the war declared over?

go bowe
07-17-2007, 02:42 PM
That’s a fairly reasonable take.
There is no doubt al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded, there is just too much evidence of it to logically deny. So the question then becomes how much did Saddam cooperate with them? None? Some, as in didn’t mind their presence but wasn’t going to work out attack plans with them? Or did he go full boat and encourage their presence with the intention of working with them?
IMO it’s the later, but I’ll admit the evidence I’ve seen leads to that conclusion though it is not conclusive on it’s own.
And even if we don’t ever find rock solid evidence of Saddam’s intentions WRT al Qaeda, isn’t part of the GWOT to be proactive? Don’t we want to bust up these rat’s nests of terrorists before they can organize and attack us?none (wrt your first set of questions)...

yes, part of the gwot is being proactive..

yes we want to bust up rats nests of jihadists, wherever found...

no wrt the terrorists being organized, recent reports suggest they are already reorganized and stronger than before 9/11, more or less...

HolmeZz
07-17-2007, 02:43 PM
How many of the past wars does the Prez actually vow to capture the leader "dead or alive"??

Bin Laden was too hard. Saddam was a fine consolation prize.

stevieray
07-17-2007, 02:44 PM
. That means being serious about every threat, not just the one that the neocons pointed their fingers at.


Stupid arguments like saying electing a Dem will cause another terrorist attack...


Both parties and most of the world pointed their fingers at Iraq.

Did we not break up the taliban in Afghanistan? Do you really believe we aren't actively pursuing OBL?


While I don't think a Dem will cause another terror attack, I do believe that any movemnt against Israel will come under Dem power, especially Hillary...One thing is for certain, they've attacked in the first year of the last two Presidents....I think it's used as a barometer to determine retaliation..or the lack thereof.

stevieray
07-17-2007, 02:46 PM
He's wrong for not keeping it.

It's still an ongoing process...it doesn't invalidate the pledge.

DaKCMan AP
07-17-2007, 02:48 PM
When was the war declared over?

Nothing has been declared over, however, the past few years in Iraq has been a major distraction to the real war. The administration chose to lose focus on the main objective.

Taco John
07-17-2007, 02:48 PM
It's still an ongoing process.

Six years later...

stevieray
07-17-2007, 02:49 PM
Nothing has been declared over, however, the past few years in Iraq has been a major distraction to the real war. The administration chose to lose focus on the main objective.

so, AQ fighting us in Iraq isn't real?

DaKCMan AP
07-17-2007, 02:50 PM
so, AQ fighting us in Iraq isn't real?

So, we went into Iraq to fight AQ?

stevieray
07-17-2007, 02:53 PM
Six years later...

is the vow you made to your wife on a timeline?

go bowe
07-17-2007, 02:56 PM
And before Hitler, no one had ever exterminated 6 million Jewish people.

Even so, we are in unchartered territory...raisng the bar to something that generally doen't happen till after the conflict is nothing but a politcal ploy to claim failure, all in the name of presidential bid...do you really think that we aren't actively after him? I don't.i am totally sure that we are in fact after osama all the time...

but with more troops (lots of troops), don't you think we might have a little better chance of catching his ass?

stevieray
07-17-2007, 02:57 PM
So, we went into Iraq to fight AQ?

Are we not fighting AQ in Iraq??

stevieray
07-17-2007, 02:58 PM
i am totally sure that we are in fact after osama all the time...

but with more troops (lots of troops), don't you think we might have a little better chance of catching his ass?

depends...remember, that terrain is the some of the most rugged in the world..

DaKCMan AP
07-17-2007, 02:58 PM
Are we not fighting AQ in Iraq??

Did we go into Iraq to fight AQ?

Radar Chief
07-17-2007, 03:00 PM
So, we went into Iraq to fight AQ?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

October 2002
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

stevieray
07-17-2007, 03:02 PM
Did we go into Iraq to fight AQ?

you still havent answered my first question.

Radar Chief
07-17-2007, 03:06 PM
Nothing has been declared over, however, the past few years in Iraq has been a major distraction to the real war. The administration chose to lose focus on the main objective.

AQ is in Iraq, has been for a while. How is that “loosing focus”?

Chief Henry
07-17-2007, 03:10 PM
AQ is in Iraq, has been for a while. How is that “loosing focus”?


Its not loosing focus. Its just part of the Talking points from the DNC and Moveon.org websites.

DaKCMan AP
07-17-2007, 03:12 PM
you still havent answered my first question.

Whether or not we're fighting AQ there NOW is inconsequential to the fact that Iraq was a distraction from the real war if we didn't go to Iraq to fight AQ.

Radar Chief
07-17-2007, 03:14 PM
none (wrt your first set of questions)...

I disagree.
Evidence gathered pre and particularly post invasion seems to indicate that he purposely opened his boarders to the fleeing al Qaeda. Even had some of them educated on chemical weapons manufacture and use.
Sending memo’s to his military commanders ordering them to recruit soldiers willing to carry out suicide missions against “the US and Western governments” tends to indicate to me he had something in mind other than just sucking up to a powerful group with a common enemy.

stevieray
07-17-2007, 03:15 PM
Whether or not we're fighting AQ there NOW is inconsequential to the fact that Iraq was a distraction from the real war if we didn't go to Iraq to fight AQ.

there you go again, calling the war not real...:shrug:

besides, they were a part of the reason we went in.

HolmeZz
07-17-2007, 03:20 PM
besides, they were a part of the reason we went in.

Not according to George.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WSunCsrkLTw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WSunCsrkLTw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

1. WMDs

2. Human suffering in Iraq

3. Advancement of freedom agenda

stevieray
07-17-2007, 03:23 PM
Not according to George.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WSunCsrkLTw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WSunCsrkLTw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

1. WMDs

2. Human suffering in Iraq

3. Advancement of freedom agenda

breeding ground for terrorists.

HolmeZz
07-17-2007, 03:29 PM
He just explained his reasoning for going into Iraq and didn't once mention Al Qaeda.

breeding ground for terrorists.

We've done a great job with that:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22065332-5005961,00.html

Cochise
07-17-2007, 03:32 PM
You're not really interested in preserving America's security. You just want to save political face for Bush.


I don't care an iota about saving face for him. I'm done with him.

I do however think that rolling out the red carpet for Al Queda in Iraq is a bad idea. And I don't think that whatever effort would be exerted to fight terrorism around the globe on the part of the Democrats would be a serious or enduring one. The far left doesn't want us to fight terrorism at all, and the right wouldn't like this idea, so it wouldn't be something that anyone would be behind for long. It's just a nicer sounding bridge to surrender.

So, rather than engage in some kind of a temporary farce to avoid looking weak on the American political spectrum, let's really bring them home if we are going to retreat. Go back to trying to fight terrorism with special operations forces instead of months of saturation in an area they would likely just give up for someplace else before we even arrived. That makes even less sense than full scale retreat.

stevieray
07-17-2007, 03:32 PM
He just explained his reasoning for going into Iraq and didn't once mention Al Qaeda.



We've done a great job with that:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22065332-5005961,00.html

you need to relisten to your video and read RC's post.

Radar Chief
07-17-2007, 03:35 PM
He just explained his reasoning for going into Iraq and didn't once mention Al Qaeda.



We've done a great job with that:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22065332-5005961,00.html

From his Oct. 02 speach "Outlining the threat in Iraq".

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

noa
07-17-2007, 03:36 PM
And I don't think that whatever effort would be exerted to fight terrorism around the globe on the part of the Democrats would be a serious or enduring one.

What makes you think that? The military wouldn't try as hard? The FBI would give up the fight? The CIA would call it quits?
I just want to know what makes you think the U.S. would stop fighting as hard based on an election.

Withdrawing from Iraq is one thing. But to say that the country would stop combating Al Qaeda and other terrorists because of a new party in the White House is quite a stretch IMO.

HolmeZz
07-17-2007, 03:42 PM
From his Oct. 02 speach "Outlining the threat in Iraq".

Why don't we attack Pakistan?

I do like that you're linking to a source where 99% of the page is filled with false information. :p

Cochise
07-17-2007, 03:42 PM
What makes you think that? The military wouldn't try as hard? The FBI would give up the fight? The CIA would call it quits?
I just want to know what makes you think the U.S. would stop fighting as hard based on an election.

Withdrawing from Iraq is one thing. But to say that the country would stop combating Al Qaeda and other terrorists because of a new party in the White House is quite a stretch IMO.

For one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/


The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst

“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him...

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.


This illustrates the difference in perspective, I think.

It's a law enforcement problem? Should we hesitate like this when given the opportunity to wipe them out?

You guys can choose to believe that the individuals who are the Democratic party leadership would be the most committed group of politicians in America to pursuing and destroying terrorists all over the globe if you like. I find the notion to be one that fails the smell test spectacularly.

Radar Chief
07-17-2007, 03:51 PM
Why don't we attack Pakistan?

Any place but Iraq?

I do like that you're linking to a source where 99% of the page is filled with false information. :p

What assertions are wrong? Or is it just because it came from Bush it’s all wrong?

Did you also notice AQ was mentioned several times, since that's what prompted me to post that link?

noa
07-17-2007, 03:57 PM
For one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/



This illustrates the difference in perspective, I think.

It's a law enforcement problem? Should we hesitate like this when given the opportunity to wipe them out?

That's a good link, and a good point. But, like ChiefaRoo said in response to you earlier, we do live in a different time and I would hope we've learned our lesson in that regard. I just can't believe that a Democrat in the White Hose would not be vigilant against Al Qaeda and other terrorist threats.

To me, the Dems appear to care about refocusing this fight, about not violating civil rights, not using fear to become a Big Brother state, and not getting all our resources and manpower tied up in a civil war in Iraq and potential future wars (like Iran). That's just their POV, although I do fear that sHillary would be open to a war with Iran. Plenty of people in this country will think the Dems are wrong and will vote against them, as they should. But I don't think its fair to say that the Dems will abandon the war on terror. They just have a different approach.

I am very concerned about Al Qaeda and about the threat of another attack in America, but I happen to think that our best strategy is to not overextend ourselves by getting into wars in Iran and elsewhere. That's precisely what Al Qaeda wants us to do, as they have publicly stated. They want the American "empire" to crumble by getting us to alienate all of our allies, thereby forcing us to overextend ourselves in this struggle. We must continue to go after Al Qaeda, but I think a great way to do this is to get other countries on board and fight engagements, but not wars, and also use diplomacy if that is possible.

When looking at the two parties, I think the Dems are the best shot at staying vigilant against terrorists (keeping in mind that the heads of the Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, NSA, and military won't do their jobs any worse based on who is in the White House) while not getting us drawn into more wars and more nation building (as Rudy has publicly stated he wants to do). I know some people who read this might want to respond with an ROFL, but I actually think its a reasonable stance and we've been forced to think of a vote for the Dems as a vote for the terrorists by silly rhetoric.

HolmeZz
07-17-2007, 04:04 PM
What assertions are wrong? Or is it just because it came from Bush it’s all wrong?

Probably all the assertions about Saddam having WMDs, which Bush says wasn't the case in the video I posted.

Did you also notice AQ was mentioned several times, since that's what prompted me to post that link?

To me, they were linked at the on-set just to try and lump Iraq in with Al Qaeda. All the 'evidence' they tried to use to link the two never surfaced, which is why you had Cheney on Meet the Press saying the US had no actual intel when it came to linking Iraq, Al Qaeda, and 9/11(and then denying they had ever even tried to link any of them). The basic justification was "both hate America and both have decades old ties".

stevieray
07-17-2007, 04:06 PM
we've been forced to think of a vote for the Dems as a vote for the terrorists by silly rhetoric.

forced? I disagree.

One difference that I see between the two is AQ hasn't declared victory, while the Dems have already declared defeat or failure..

Cochise
07-17-2007, 04:07 PM
I don't think its fair to say that the Dems will abandon the war on terror. They just have a different approach.

I don't believe that the far left thinks we should fight terrorism at all. Many of them already say that the war on terror is a sham. Most of them believe that the only reason Al Queda wants to attack us is "blowback", it's because of our own actions, and the logical conclusion is that if we run back inside our borders and lock the door, they'll leave us alone and we'll never hear from Al Queda again.

If you believe that, then their plan sounds great. The problem is that Al Queda does not only attack in retaliation to offense but primarily with the goal of subjugating the entire world to Islamic governance.

If you don't believe that there is even a serious threat to America from terrorism to begin with as long as we bow to their demands and hide, are you going to expend every resource fighting them worldwide and make it a top priority in the long term? Of course not. Do they want us to knock the schoolyard bully out and fix the problem for everyone, or do they want to just give him our lunch money today and try to avoid him on the playground indefinitely? What ought we do?

They say one thing, but it doesn't match up with their underlying framework. It doesn't fit at all with what we know about liberalism. I doubt that they are going to pursue the WOT with much vigor at all, especially when we could be expanding entitlement programs at home with the money, or annexing health care, or legalizing aliens, or saving the world from our environmental destruction that is 10 years out, other matters of greater social import.

HolmeZz
07-17-2007, 04:10 PM
forced? I disagree.

One difference that I see between the two is AQ hasn't declared victory, while the Dems have already declared defeat or failure..

There's more of the silly rhetoric.

Tell me what we're doing to stop Al Qaeda when they're apparently getting even more stronger in Pakistan.

noa
07-17-2007, 04:11 PM
forced? I disagree.

One difference that I see between the two is AQ hasn't declared victory, while the Dems have already declared defeat or failure..

You're right, I shouldn't have said forced. More like, "led to believe" or something less authoritarian.

As for the Dems declaring failure, I think they have done that in one aspect -- the war in Iraq -- but they in no way have declared defeat against Al Qaeda. I think they want to withdraw some troops from Iraq so they can take on Al Qaeda elsewhere, while still leaving a presence in Iraq to take on Al Qaeda there.

noa
07-17-2007, 04:15 PM
I don't believe that the far left thinks we should fight terrorism at all. Many of them already say that the war on terror is a sham. Most of them believe that the only reason Al Queda wants to attack us is "blowback", it's because of our own actions, and the logical conclusion is that if we run back inside our borders and lock the door, they'll leave us alone and we'll never hear from Al Queda again.

This is a fair point. There are definitely people on the far left who think that. My only response is that a Dem president won't be a far leftist. If its Hillary, she'll be a centrist just like Slick Willy. Even if the majority of Dem votes come from the far left (which I doubt because I think the Dems will win over a lot of centrists in the election), the president won't rule under that mindset.

Adept Havelock
07-17-2007, 04:15 PM
You know better than this, rather than using the military when it's necessary to attempt to create greater, lasting peace through democracy around the world, the only reason liberals want to use the military for its intended purpose is to either avoid looking weak or on some kind of humanitarian mission.

Wow. You ought to vote for Rudy. He also believes the Military should be trained and used in nation building just like you suggested.

Never thought I'd see the day a "conservative" advocated that.

Cochise
07-17-2007, 04:20 PM
Wow. You ought to vote for Rudy. He also believes the Military should be trained and used in nation building just like you suggested.

Never thought I'd see the day a "conservative" advocated that. :shake:

I think you are misreading that. There is a dichotomy there. (when it's necessary), then (objective is to create peace through democracy). The first is not a function of the second. The second is a successor of the first.

I didn't mean that we should assemble a list of every authoritarian regime on earth and try to replace them all sequentially. I did mean that when we need to make war, we should do it in a way that plants the seeds of democracy behind.

Cochise
07-17-2007, 04:22 PM
This is a fair point. There are definitely people on the far left who think that. My only response is that a Dem president won't be a far leftist. If its Hillary, she'll be a centrist just like Slick Willy. Even if the majority of Dem votes come from the far left (which I doubt because I think the Dems will win over a lot of centrists in the election), the president won't rule under that mindset.

You trust them that they are going to fight their base on this issue for their entire term in office without compromise. I do not see that as likely in the least. There are elections every two years.

go bowe
07-17-2007, 04:22 PM
I disagree.
Evidence gathered pre and particularly post invasion seems to indicate that he purposely opened his boarders to the fleeing al Qaeda. Even had some of them educated on chemical weapons manufacture and use.
Sending memo’s to his military commanders ordering them to recruit soldiers willing to carry out suicide missions against “the US and Western governments” tends to indicate to me he had something in mind other than just sucking up to a powerful group with a common enemy.i would expect that sadammit himself had to approve the entry of jihadists to iraq...

unless they entered through the northern mountainous area of whateveristan, under the control of kurds, not sadamnhimtohell...

in addition to your list, iirc, there were actually reports during the invasion that some generals were given orders to use wmd's that they didn't have...

stevieray
07-17-2007, 04:22 PM
There's more of the silly rhetoric.

Tell me what we're doing to stop Al Qaeda when they're apparently getting even more stronger in Pakistan.

talk about rhetoric.. we definitely aren't doing anything and we are totally responsible for the hate that drives their hearts.

Adept Havelock
07-17-2007, 04:24 PM
I think you are misreading that. There is a dichotomy there. (when it's necessary), then (objective is to create peace through democracy). The first is not a function of the second. The second is a successor of the first.

I didn't mean that we should assemble a list of every authoritarian regime on earth and try to replace them all sequentially. I did mean that when we need to make war, we should do it in a way that plants the seeds of democracy behind.

Thanks for the clarification.

What about cases where we didn't need to make war, but did it anyway? :p

Radar Chief
07-17-2007, 04:26 PM
Probably all the assertions about Saddam having WMDs, which Bush says wasn't the case in the video I posted.

“Probably”? Did you read what he said?

To me, they were linked at the on-set just to try and lump Iraq in with Al Qaeda. All the 'evidence' they tried to use to link the two never surfaced, which is why you had Cheney on Meet the Press saying the US had no actual intel when it came to linking Iraq, Al Qaeda, and 9/11(and then denying they had ever even tried to link any of them). The basic justification was "both hate America and both have decades old ties".

Now you seem to be mixing two different arguments to come up with the predetermined conclusion that “Bush lied”.
There is no evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11th attacks, this is true, there is however evidence that they were involved with AQ. Association with AQ doesn’t by default mean involvement with 9/11 attacks.

stevieray
07-17-2007, 04:28 PM
I don't believe that the far left thinks we should fight terrorism at all. Many of them already say that the war on terror is a sham. Most of them believe that the only reason Al Queda wants to attack us is "blowback", it's because of our own actions, and the logical conclusion is that if we run back inside our borders and lock the door, they'll leave us alone and we'll never hear from Al Queda again.

If you believe that, then their plan sounds great. The problem is that Al Queda does not only attack in retaliation to offense but primarily with the goal of subjugating the entire world to Islamic governance.

If you don't believe that there is even a serious threat to America from terrorism to begin with as long as we bow to their demands and hide, are you going to expend every resource fighting them worldwide and make it a top priority in the long term? Of course not. Do they want us to knock the schoolyard bully out and fix the problem for everyone, or do they want to just give him our lunch money today and try to avoid him on the playground indefinitely? What ought we do?

They say one thing, but it doesn't match up with their underlying framework. It doesn't fit at all with what we know about liberalism. I doubt that they are going to pursue the WOT with much vigor at all, especially when we could be expanding entitlement programs at home with the money, or annexing health care, or legalizing aliens, or saving the world from our environmental destruction that is 10 years out, other matters of greater social import.

Great post. I fear some don't realize that the rules did change on 9/11..the game is on..it's not going away..if anything I'd expect the next attacks to really test our resolve as a nation. We are already divided, which in turn makes us vulnerable.. :(

noa
07-17-2007, 04:32 PM
Great post. I fear some don't realize that the rules did change on 9/11..the game is on..it's not going away..if anything I'd expect the next attacks to really test our resolve as a nation. We are already divided, which in turn makes us vulnerable.. :(

I actually think the people who needed to realize that the rules changed did. Maybe not the far left liberals of the Dem party, but I believe the people in power know that its a different world and we are in a new kind of struggle. But that's JMO

Cochise
07-17-2007, 04:34 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

What about cases where we didn't need to make war, but did it anyway? :p

No one is in favor of unjust or unnecessary war, of course. They would just disagree with the definitions of those or the circumstances at hand.

In this case, it's not like we can undo what we've done. We're already there, the place is shattered and we did it. How do we not have both the responsibility to build up what we tore down, and the target of opportunity to make the world a better place long-term by holding fast until there is a new stable democracy in the world?

Adept Havelock
07-17-2007, 04:35 PM
I actually think the people who needed to realize that the rules changed did. Maybe not the far left liberals of the Dem party, but I believe the people in power know that its a different world and we are in a new kind of struggle. But that's JMO

I'm inclined to agree, but there are plenty on both sides that want to pretend the other party is completely incapable of effectively fighting the WOT in order to gain a political advantage.

jAZ and Denise have certainly done this for the Left, and Cochise's post 106 is a great example of the same behavior from the Right IMO.

stevieray
07-17-2007, 04:35 PM
I actually think the people who needed to realize that the rules changed did. Maybe not the far left liberals of the Dem party, but I believe the people in power know that its a different world and we are in a new kind of struggle. But that's JMO

I sure hope so.

noa
07-17-2007, 04:39 PM
In this case, it's not like we can undo what we've done. We're already there, the place is shattered and we did it. How do we not have both the responsibility to build up what we tore down, and the target of opportunity to make the world a better place long-term by holding fast until there is a new stable democracy in the world?

Its a great goal, but the problem is that you can't just invade a country with no democratic institutions and set up a democracy. History teaches us that a country needs certain institutions to successfully make a democratic transition. The challenge is especially difficult considering the bitter hatred between the Sunnis and Shi'ites (can I say Shi'ite?).
Perhaps this is defeatist rhetoric, but I think its a valid view considering historical studies of other democratic transitions.

I base a lot of my this off of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Problems-Democratic-Transition-Consolidation-Post-Communist/dp/0801851580

Adept Havelock
07-17-2007, 04:43 PM
Its a great goal, but the problem is that you can't just invade a country with no democratic institutions and set up a democracy. History teaches us that a country needs certain institutions to successfully make a democratic transition. The challenge is especially difficult considering the bitter hatred between the Sunnis and Shi'ites (can I say Shi'ite?).
Perhaps this is defeatist rhetoric, but I think its a valid view considering historical studies of other democratic transitions.

I base a lot of my this off of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Problems-Democratic-Transition-Consolidation-Post-Communist/dp/0801851580

I'm inclined to agree. I think our problems in Iraq are very similar to what Tito would have faced if he had attempted to create a Democratic Government in Yugoslavia, instead of his autocratic approach.

Cochise
07-17-2007, 04:48 PM
Its a great goal, but the problem is that you can't just invade a country with no democratic institutions and set up a democracy.

It's already done. We're there, it's reality. We can't go home and put the TV on the cartoon network for the rest of our lives and ignore what will happen if we surrender Iraq to Al Queda.

Should we leave a vacuum that a Taliban will soon take over so that we can go to Afghanistan and clean up after the last Taliban?

If we leave Iraq just sitting out there for anyone who wants it, we'll get the same thing we had with the Taliban, and eventually, we could be looking at needing to topple a regime in Iraq again, like we had to topple them in Afghanistan because of 9/11.

But nobody is thinking about the future cost of leaving. People just want the bad news to stop.

noa
07-17-2007, 04:52 PM
It's already done. We're there, it's reality. We can't go home and put the TV on the cartoon network for the rest of our lives and ignore what will happen if we surrender Iraq to Al Queda.

Should we leave a vacuum that a Taliban will soon take over so that we can go to Afghanistan and clean up after the last Taliban?

If we leave Iraq just sitting out there for anyone who wants it, we'll get the same thing we had with the Taliban, and eventually, we could be looking at needing to topple a regime in Iraq again, like we had to topple them in Afghanistan because of 9/11.

But nobody is thinking about the future cost of leaving. People just want the bad news to stop.

That's the truth. Can't argue with that. I think our only options are to divide the country a la the Biden plan, or to reduce our presence and ride it out.

mlyonsd
07-17-2007, 05:13 PM
Iraq aside I think the obvious question that needs to be asked of the presidential candidates and members of congress is are they willing to allow American forces to invade Pakistan to go after AQ?

Statements like Obama's are just more blah blah blah rhetoric without giving the public any details on how far they'd go.

go bowe
07-17-2007, 06:23 PM
depends...remember, that terrain is the some of the most rugged in the world..not so different from the mountains where aq and their taliban friends are hiding just across the border in pakistan...

more troops would help a lot to increase the chances that we might stumble across osama in the border areas of pakistan, after getting "lost" a few times...

or maby launch the special ops people to go and smuggle osama out of pakistan and into some nice place, like leavenworth or better yet, gitmo...

Logical
07-17-2007, 08:49 PM
Great post. I fear some don't realize that the rules did change on 9/11..the game is on..it's not going away..if anything I'd expect the next attacks to really test our resolve as a nation. We are already divided, which in turn makes us vulnerable.. :(We weren't divide until we decided to occupy Iraq.

go bowe
07-17-2007, 08:55 PM
Iraq aside I think the obvious question that needs to be asked of the presidential candidates and members of congress is are they willing to allow American forces to invade Pakistan to go after AQ?

Statements like Obama's are just more blah blah blah rhetoric without giving the public any details on how far they'd go.why would we want to broadcast how far we would go?

you know that's one of the reasons that they created this concept called secrecy...

hell, geraldo got his ass in the sling when he drew some lines in the sand representing the positions of our troops and the enemy...

stevieray
07-17-2007, 09:05 PM
We weren't divide until we decided to occupy Iraq.

Yes Jim, I know you are deflecting everything back to Bush now. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

BucEyedPea
07-17-2007, 10:12 PM
AQ is in Iraq, has been for a while. How is that “loosing focus”?
al Qaeda in Iraq is home grown and probably not much of a threat to the US

Taco John
07-17-2007, 10:22 PM
I don't believe that the far left thinks we should fight terrorism at all. Many of them already say that the war on terror is a sham. Most of them believe that the only reason Al Queda wants to attack us is "blowback", it's because of our own actions, and the logical conclusion is that if we run back inside our borders and lock the door, they'll leave us alone and we'll never hear from Al Queda again.


You're confusing the far left with moderates.

Logical
07-17-2007, 10:23 PM
Yes Jim, I know you are deflecting everything back to Bush now. Thanks for sharing your opinion.No problem. I am wondering how you would illustrate that we were divided after 9-11 and before the Iraq occupation?

Taco John
07-17-2007, 10:24 PM
I do however think that rolling out the red carpet for Al Queda in Iraq is a bad idea.



I agree. I wish we never would have done it.

Taco John
07-17-2007, 10:35 PM
For one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/





Remind you of anything? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165571&page=1&pp=15)

Of course it doesn't. When Clinton passes on a target, it's treason. When Bush does it, it's a thoughtful calculation... :rolleyes:

Taco John
07-17-2007, 10:45 PM
It's already done. We're there, it's reality. We can't go home and put the TV on the cartoon network for the rest of our lives and ignore what will happen if we surrender Iraq to Al Queda.


It dumbfounds me how you can be so wrong about this issue. We won. We got rid of Saddaam Hussein. We even had a mission accomplished party. I've seen the picture.

It's not US who is surrendering Iraq to Al Qaeda. It's the Iraqis. It's their job to defend THEIR democracy if they care enough about it to make it work.

We can't force Iraq to work together as a nation no matter how many of our soldiers we're willing to sacrifice to the cause.




But nobody is thinking about the future cost of leaving. People just want the bad news to stop.

That's because everybody already TOLD YOU how this was going to come out before we even went into this thing. Rumsfeld was talking about 6 month engagements while the Generals were talking about endless struggles, especially if we didn't troop up to the right levels from the outset. This administration has floundered their way through this war, and you want to blame the people who have been right the entire time for not thinking about the future cost?

You don't get to do that. At least not with any credibility.

BucEyedPea
07-17-2007, 10:54 PM
You're confusing the far left with moderates.
As well as limited govt conservatives and right libertarians.

The problem with the Neo-Conned Right and the RR, who support Cochise's view, is they want to lay the blame, incorrectly, on Islam being violent in itself, ignoring the modern political aspects due to current and historical religous rancor or prejudice. Just because it has some truth in it does not make it the "why." Most of that violence is directed at local issues....even in Europe.

The one thing about OSB is that he makes his complaints known in his messages and fatwahs. That he was offended by permanent military bases on Muslim holy lands. Everything else is secondary, even if he cites US support for corrupt Arab regimes too. Installing permanent military land bases on Saudi soil began with Bush Sr. To equate this analysis with the far left (making it solelya partisan battle in the US) is just putting one's head in the sand and increasing the problem. It is the entire reason AQ drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

To say it is blame, is taking no responsibility for objectively analyzing what is a flawed policy—a policy of empire. Even RR recognized the failure of doing this and pulled us out. Even a smart businessman has to adjust policy in order to succeed. This is wise leadership imo. Anything less is psychological defensiveness.

And it is AlQaeda that is our enemy, not Islamofacists, a created boogeyman to scare the public. There is no pan-Islamic threat. This is exaggeration to justify more bases and more empire—the exact things that brought terror home to America.

Taco John
07-17-2007, 11:16 PM
I think these folks who believe in a foriegn policy that doesn't think through to the consequences like to put everyone who doesn't agree with them in a "far left" box while patting themselves on the back for maintaining "conservative" values.

There's nothing conservative about this war in Iraq. Nothing really at all.

Logical
07-18-2007, 12:15 AM
... There is no pan-Islamic threat. This is exaggeration to justify more bases and more empire—the exact things that brought terror home to America.See now that is just as wrong as what the far right and neocons are saying. There is a legitimate pan-Islamic threat, they want us dead as infidels but they probably don't want it bad enough to mount a continuous and constant terror threat if we improve on some of the things they are most offended by such as occupying their lands.

ChiefaRoo
07-18-2007, 03:19 AM
It dumbfounds me how you can be so wrong about this issue. We won. We got rid of Saddaam Hussein. We even had a mission accomplished party. I've seen the picture.

It's not US who is surrendering Iraq to Al Qaeda. It's the Iraqis. It's their job to defend THEIR democracy if they care enough about it to make it work.

We can't force Iraq to work together as a nation no matter how many of our soldiers we're willing to sacrifice to the cause.





That's because everybody already TOLD YOU how this was going to come out before we even went into this thing. Rumsfeld was talking about 6 month engagements while the Generals were talking about endless struggles, especially if we didn't troop up to the right levels from the outset. This administration has floundered their way through this war, and you want to blame the people who have been right the entire time for not thinking about the future cost?

You don't get to do that. At least not with any credibility.


I don't think a lot of pre-war opponents knew there was going to be a sectarian conflict between Iraqi's, I think they just hated W. for winning in 2000. W. is a big problem for the Dems and the Repubs. when it comes to getting together and communicating. Like Cochise said, I'm over Bush too. Now, I'm concerned about how we defeat AQ and militant Islam whether it's in Iraq, Pakistan or wherever. I see Iraq being a Korean type of situation. We need to stay there to stabilize the country and that's going to take a lot of time and a lot of troops. Fact is we need a larger standing Army and Marine Corps. We are going to need to project large amounts of power into the ME for a long time.

Taco John
07-18-2007, 03:58 AM
I don't think a lot of pre-war opponents knew there was going to be a sectarian conflict between Iraqi's...


Of course they did. That's why the Generals were telling Bush and Rumsfeld that we needed overwhelming force to secure the streets.

Radar Chief
07-18-2007, 07:47 AM
al Qaeda in Iraq is home grown and probably not much of a threat to the US

Exact same thing had been said about al Qaeda itself in the late ‘80’s early ‘90’s. In fact, Al Bore poked fun at Ollie North during judicial proceedings because of the expense of the security system he had installed in his home when he found out Osama bin Hide’n put out a contract on him.

Radar Chief
07-18-2007, 07:51 AM
We weren't divide until we decided to occupy Iraq.

Yea, cause, like, everything was peaches and roses until then.

BucEyedPea
07-18-2007, 08:03 AM
See now that is just as wrong as what the far right and neocons are saying. There is a legitimate pan-Islamic threat, they want us dead as infidels but they probably don't want it bad enough to mount a continuous and constant terror threat if we improve on some of the things they are most offended by such as occupying their lands.
No it is not. It is a Red Herring.

Turks doing honor killings in Germany has nothing to do with them wanting to kill us. The riots in France by Algierians had nothing to do with us. The mess in Somalia was created by us. Hezbollah is not our enemy either, but will become one if we strike Iran.

There are billions of Muslims. It's actually a tiny fraction that are involved in terrorism.

BucEyedPea
07-18-2007, 08:06 AM
Exact same thing had been said about al Qaeda itself in the late ‘80’s early ‘90’s. In fact, Al Bore poked fun at Ollie North during judicial proceedings because of the expense of the security system he had installed in his home when he found out Osama bin Hide’n put out a contract on him.
That has nothing to do with AQ in Iraq being made up of Iraqi's. This is not the same as Osama's AQ, even if they pledged recently during the Iraq invasion.

Radar Chief
07-18-2007, 08:16 AM
That has nothing to do with AQ in Iraq being made up of Iraqi's. This is not the same as Osama's AQ, even if they pledged recently during the Iraq invasion.

Then why is Osama tapping them to attack us?

stevieray
07-18-2007, 08:21 AM
And it is AlQaeda that is our enemy, not Islamofacists, a created boogeyman to scare the public. There is no pan-Islamic threat. This is exaggeration to justify more bases and more empire—the exact things that brought terror home to America.

Well, that definitely explains 93 WTC, the USS Cole and the Embassy attacks...

:rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
07-18-2007, 08:22 AM
Then why is Osama tapping them to attack us?
I said they were home grown...and pledged later to OBL. ( you missed that part) It is not the AQ that carried out attacks here on 9/11.

Radar Chief
07-18-2007, 08:29 AM
I said they were home grown...and pledged later to OBL. ( you missed that part) It is not the AQ that carried out attacks here on 9/11.

No, I didn’t “miss that part”, but you obviously overlooked the part where I pointed out Osama himself is tasking "AQ in Iraq" with attacking us here in the US. Or is this just avoidance?

BucEyedPea
07-18-2007, 08:59 AM
Well, that definitely explains 93 WTC, the USS Cole and the Embassy attacks...

:rolleyes:
AQ funded the 93 WTC soil post PGWI.
AQ was responsible for USS Cole
AQ was responsible for embassy attacks in Afric

Conclusion: AQ is our enemy.
AQ officially declared war on America in 1996


WTC was post putting military bases on holy lands on Saudi...same as others.

BucEyedPea
07-18-2007, 09:09 AM
No, I didn’t “miss that part”, but you obviously overlooked the part where I pointed out Osama himself is tasking "AQ in Iraq" with attacking us here in the US. Or is this just avoidance?
I haven't overlooked anything you said. You mischaracterized what I said to argue for the sake of arguing.

I referred to the Ollie North claim as having nothing to do with AQ in Iraq being homegrown...as in originating there, not the original AQ of OBL that carried out attacks on 9/11. That has no bearing on pledging to OBL's AQ later, or becoming an ally which is not a contradiction to what you're claiming now. They are an Iraqi AQ spawned by our invasion.

Radar Chief
07-18-2007, 09:19 AM
I haven't overlooked anything you said. You mischaracterized what I said to argue for the sake of arguing.

Oh, now you’re projecting intent? So much for the “anti-ad hominem queen”.

I referred to the Ollie North claim as having nothing to do with AQ in Iraq being homegrown...

It has everything to do with the fact that the same thing you’re trying to claim about “AQ in Iraq” was said about the original AQ back then.

as in originating there, not the original AQ of OBL that carried out attacks on 9/11. That has no bearing on pledging to OBL's AQ later, or becoming an ally which is not a contradiction to what you're claiming now. They are an Iraqi AQ spawned by our invasion.

Didn’t the last intelligence assessment put the number of foreign fighters that make up AQ in Iraq at around 80%?
If true, that puts a pretty big hit on this “home grown terrorist” rhetoric of yours.

BucEyedPea
07-18-2007, 09:50 AM
According to the data I have the foreign fighters are a small minority and we killed most of them off. Weren't the doctor's in England recently, at least some of them, Iraqi? AQ is a franchised operation that plays on local complaints, particularly related to the US and acts as a facilitator for those locals...and it is growing.

As for Ollie North's threats during Iran Contra, that was Abu Nidal per Snopes and video replays.

Radar Chief
07-18-2007, 10:06 AM
According to the data I have the foreign fighters are a small minority and we killed most of them off. Weren't the doctor's in England recently, at least some of them, Iraqi? AQ is a franchised operation that plays on local complaints, particularly related to the US and acts as a facilitator for those locals...and it is growing.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-17-intelligence-estimate_N.htm

Al-Qaeda, the report said, may seek to leverage the assets of al-Qaeda in Iraq, identified as al-Qaeda's most "capable" affiliate.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq has gained strength since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. It has supplied many of the fighters in the anti-U.S. insurgency, but its tactics have angered some Iraqi tribes that have allied themselves with U.S. forces in Anbar and Diyala provinces and some neighborhoods of Baghdad.

As for Ollie North's threats during Iran Contra, that was Abu Nidal per Snopes and video replays.

That’s actually correct. Thanks for pointing that out. :thumb:

go bowe
07-18-2007, 10:41 AM
No one is in favor of unjust or unnecessary war, of course. They would just disagree with the definitions of those or the circumstances at hand.

In this case, it's not like we can undo what we've done. We're already there, the place is shattered and we did it. How do we not have both the responsibility to build up what we tore down, and the target of opportunity to make the world a better place long-term by holding fast until there is a new stable democracy in the world?i don't really disagree with what you are saying...

but for some reason, katrina comes to mind...

new orleans is shattered and we should put it back together...

to me, that would be a better use of our resources...

mlyonsd
07-18-2007, 08:07 PM
why would we want to broadcast how far we would go?

you know that's one of the reasons that they created this concept called secrecy...

hell, geraldo got his ass in the sling when he drew some lines in the sand representing the positions of our troops and the enemy...

I think understanding how far all of our elected politicians would go to eradicate AQ is a valid question.

Especially if they are willing to topple a supposed ally owning nukes to do it.

Other than that speeches like Obama's are just rhetoric.

Logical
07-18-2007, 09:15 PM
i don't really disagree with what you are saying...

but for some reason, katrina comes to mind...

new orleans is shattered and we should put it back together...

to me, that would be a better use of our resources...:clap:

Logical
07-18-2007, 09:21 PM
No it is not. It is a Red Herring.

Turks doing honor killings in Germany has nothing to do with them wanting to kill us. The riots in France by Algierians had nothing to do with us. The mess in Somalia was created by us. Hezbollah is not our enemy either, but will become one if we strike Iran.

There are billions of Muslims. It's actually a tiny fraction that are involved in terrorism.
Jesus, you really need to be less invested in your Libertarian beliefs, in the real world many Muslims hate non-muslims and a percentage of those believe Jihad is the only answer. That has nothing to do with western countries occupying ME lands. You seem as bad as patteeu when you get like this, closed minded and one dimensional.

BucEyedPea
07-18-2007, 10:29 PM
Jesus, you really need to be less invested in your Libertarian beliefs, in the real world many Muslims hate non-muslims and a percentage of those believe Jihad is the only answer. That has nothing to do with western countries occupying ME lands. You seem as bad as patteeu when you get like this, closed minded and one dimensional.
Seriously, you need to bone up on what is libertarianism and what isn't.
This has nothing to do with a political philosophy of non-agression, individual rights and markets.

Dr. Michael Sheuer was on Fox tonight, saying plenty of the things I've been saying in this thread and earlier. Read up on his material. He's a life-long Republican, a RC ( I believe) and the former chief of the CIA's binLaden counterrorism unit 22 yar veteran of the CIA. These guys write for many sites espousing similar views on this issue. He wrote the book "Imperial Hubris: Why The West is Losing the War on Terror." Other former CIA will tell you the same, as well as paleo conservatives like Pat Buchanan and some liberals.

Once again, I am not a libertarian. I am a paleo-conservative.
And I never said there wasn't any hate by Muslim's of non-Muslims. Now put a figure on it, instead of a generality and put it in context to events. Just because there is truth in that, does not make it the motive for terrorism directed toward the US. Generalities are unacceptable.

Oh, btw, you're one dimensional too in that you need to read what I write more clearly. There is nothing one dimensional about insisting on what the motives are behind terrorism if one feels it's the truth. No different than many others.

patteeu
07-19-2007, 01:06 PM
You can take that up with the Pentagon (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html)

My premise is well grounded.

Your premise: Al Qaeda was not in Iraq in the first place (which I take to mean, prior to our invasion).

Your link: Al Qaeda did not have a mature, symbiotic relationship with Iraq at the time of our invasion.

Your confusion: That your link is evidence that your premise is well grounded.

But the bigger confusion among you anti-war fools is that al Qaeda had to have a substantial, well established group in Iraq who were collaborating with Saddam's regime to justify our attack there. Who is so stupid to think that Al Qaeda is a group whose members are all objectively identifiable as if they carry a card and register their names with some kind of central membership clearing house as opposed to a loose organization with affiliates and collaborators who are sometimes working in concert with the wishes of OBL and sometimes doing their own radical islamist thing? Who is so stupid to think that an ongoing, mature collaborative relationship between Saddam and AQ is required to justify our invasion but overtures between the two, investigating the possibility of collaboration in matters related to their common enemy, the US, is not? Who is so stupid to think that our GWoT is narrowly focused on the core AQ group in the first place instead of the core group, along with it's allies and affiliates around the world who are all involved in the same war against civilization? Nevermind, I know who.

patteeu
07-19-2007, 01:26 PM
al Qaeda in Iraq is home grown and probably not much of a threat to the US

AQ in Iraq has had 2 leaders so far. Neither of them were homegrown. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a Jordanian and Abu Ayyub al-Masri is an Egyptian. That would be the cold war equivalent of having a cadre of Soviets come to the US and recruit fellow traveler Americans into a communist insurgency and calling it homegrown.

Taco John
07-19-2007, 02:28 PM
But the bigger confusion among you anti-war fools is that al Qaeda had to have a substantial, well established group in Iraq who were collaborating with Saddam's regime to justify our attack there.


It would be nice if we had something to justify the debacle that we have going on there.

And for the record, I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-idiot executing this war. I'm tired of seeing our soldiers being sacrificed because this dope is in over his head. I'm not willing to sacrifice soldiers so that Bush can somehow salvage a legacy.

Think about the strategy of this war.... Go in, establish Democracy, and then watch the ME fall in like a bunch of dominoes. Do you really think that's going to happen? We don't even know if Iraq is going to be a viable state when this is all said and done. For all we know, our soldiers are dying to expand Iran's territory and influence in the region.

Bush would probably be a hero right now if he'd have went in with overwhelming force. Instead, he pussyfooted around and didn't make a real commitment to success. And that's what history will remember. That's his legacy.

Maybe next time we go to war, we'll learn from our lesson of arrogance, and actually commit to victory from the outset, instead of floundering along and losing the public along the way.

BucEyedPea
07-19-2007, 08:16 PM
AQ in Iraq has had 2 leaders so far. Neither of them were homegrown. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a Jordanian and Abu Ayyub al-Masri is an Egyptian. That would be the cold war equivalent of having a cadre of Soviets come to the US and recruit fellow traveler Americans into a communist insurgency and calling it homegrown.
That's not what's meant by "homegrown" though.

Al-Zarqawi was living in the north, Kurdistan, and was just a wanna-be...he didn't become AQ until post invasion. Sorry, but the professionals, those former binLaden CI unit in the CIA whistleblowers say you're wrong. It is an Iraqi AQ now. It may take inspiration from BL's AQ but its enemies are Shi'ites and the US occupation, not plotting attacks against the US mainland. ( even if BL's is now advising such). If the US pulls out of Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will have its hands full battling the Shi'a in the Iraqi civil war.

Michael Sheuer explained how it wasn't the same AQ last night on Fox and even stratfor agreed with him.


our link: Al Qaeda did not have a mature, symbiotic relationship with Iraq at the time of our invasion.

Your confusion: That your link is evidence that your premise is well grounded.


Not really. It's your confusion. Just because they talked with each other and it went nowhere not only does not mean Iraq was collaboratively involved in 9/11 but also not involved with BL. In fact SH rejected BL as he saw him as a potential enemy eventually that would turn on him. By your standard anyone who ever spoke to BL should be killed or have their country invaded. You might as well start with Americans like Zbigniew Brzezinski who bragged about creating BL and AQ, or impeaching both Bush Jr and Sr as their family is close to the BL family and ushered them out of the country...or kill the owners of certain FL flight schools or invade the country where BL kept his money.

Yes there should be a substantial and collaborative link. Your bar is too low and more like a knee-jerk reaction of a bull in a china shop breaking everything in site but missing the real target. Justification is a mechanism we all use after doing something wrong in order to make ourselves right.

Silly lawyerese semantics, pat.

Oh...and I'm not anti-war either.

patteeu
07-20-2007, 07:20 AM
It would be nice if we had something to justify the debacle that we have going on there.

And for the record, I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-idiot executing this war. I'm tired of seeing our soldiers being sacrificed because this dope is in over his head. I'm not willing to sacrifice soldiers so that Bush can somehow salvage a legacy.

Think about the strategy of this war.... Go in, establish Democracy, and then watch the ME fall in like a bunch of dominoes. Do you really think that's going to happen? We don't even know if Iraq is going to be a viable state when this is all said and done. For all we know, our soldiers are dying to expand Iran's territory and influence in the region.

Bush would probably be a hero right now if he'd have went in with overwhelming force. Instead, he pussyfooted around and didn't make a real commitment to success. And that's what history will remember. That's his legacy.

Maybe next time we go to war, we'll learn from our lesson of arrogance, and actually commit to victory from the outset, instead of floundering along and losing the public along the way.

Maybe things would have gone smoother if we'd gone in with overwhelming force as you suggest, but that's not where we are right now. Your disappointment with how the war has been executed so far is no reason to adopt the failure-by-choice approach that your Presidential candidate advocates.

I don't care about Bush's legacy. I do care about proving to our enemies that we can't be so easily defeated and to those who choose to work with us that we can be relied upon.

BTW, I agree with your description of the domino theory that the Bush administration was/is pursuing, but I can't tell whether or not you appreciate that this is a LONG range strategy aimed at undermining islamist radicalism not something that was supposed to happen overnight.

patteeu
07-20-2007, 07:43 AM
That's not what's meant by "homegrown" though.

Al-Zarqawi was living in the north, Kurdistan, and was just a wanna-be...he didn't become AQ until post invasion. Sorry, but the professionals, those former binLaden CI unit in the CIA whistleblowers say you're wrong. It is an Iraqi AQ now. It may take inspiration from BL's AQ but its enemies are Shi'ites and the US occupation, not plotting attacks against the US mainland. ( even if BL's is now advising such). If the US pulls out of Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will have its hands full battling the Shi'a in the Iraqi civil war.

Michael Sheuer explained how it wasn't the same AQ last night on Fox and even stratfor agreed with him.

I'm not sure what you are saying I'm wrong about here. Everything I said was true.

On the other hand, calling Zarqawi a wannabe AQ is not so true. He fought in Afghanistan on the side of the Taliban and AQ. He was associated with AQ prior to our invasion in Iraq even if he had aspirations of starting his own terror group aimed at Jordan instead of AQ's focus on Saudi Arabia. As I mentioned before, AQ isn't a well defined club where you are either a card-carrying member or you are not. It's a cadre with some closely controlled members and a vast web of much more loosely associated affiliates and sympathizers who are not necessarily directly controlled by AQ central. Zarqawi was in the latter group.

Not really. It's your confusion. Just because they talked with each other and it went nowhere not only does not mean Iraq was collaboratively involved in 9/11 but also not involved with BL. In fact SH rejected BL as he saw him as a potential enemy eventually that would turn on him. By your standard anyone who ever spoke to BL should be killed or have their country invaded. You might as well start with Americans like Zbigniew Brzezinski who bragged about creating BL and AQ, or impeaching both Bush Jr and Sr as their family is close to the BL family and ushered them out of the country...or kill the owners of certain FL flight schools or invade the country where BL kept his money.

Yes there should be a substantial and collaborative link. Your bar is too low and more like a knee-jerk reaction of a bull in a china shop breaking everything in site but missing the real target. Justification is a mechanism we all use after doing something wrong in order to make ourselves right.

Silly lawyerese semantics, pat.

Oh...and I'm not anti-war either.

According to the 9/11 commission, originally it was Saddam's regime that rejected overtures from AQ, BUT MORE RECENTLY, IT WAS SADDAM's REGIME MAKING THE OVERTURES. This puts the lie to your contention that Saddam would have nothing to do with "a potential enemy." Both sides were interested in finding ways to collaborate even if no collaborative relationship had yet been established. It was a gathering threat, as President Bush was fond of saying.

And when you say this:

Just because they talked with each other and it went nowhere not only does not mean Iraq was collaboratively involved in 9/11 but also not involved with BL.

You couldn't be more wrong. The fact that they talked with each other and the fact that both sides made overtures of collaboration at one time or another means that Saddam WAS INVOLVED with BL, by definition, and that their involvement could have potentially grown into a collaborative relationship. And furthermore, given the state of our intelligence capabilities at the time of the invasion, we had no way to be sure that a collaborative agreement had not been reached as a result of these numerous contacts.

stevieray
07-20-2007, 07:53 AM
defending a terrorist that was executed by his own people... the desperation to make the US "wrong" must be excruciatingly painful..or just more watered down boomer mantra.

Radar Chief
07-20-2007, 08:03 AM
That's not what's meant by "homegrown" though.

Al-Zarqawi was living in the north, Kurdistan, and was just a wanna-be...he didn't become AQ until post invasion. Sorry, but the professionals, those former binLaden CI unit in the CIA whistleblowers say you're wrong. It is an Iraqi AQ now. It may take inspiration from BL's AQ but its enemies are Shi'ites and the US occupation, not plotting attacks against the US mainland. ( even if BL's is now advising such). If the US pulls out of Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will have its hands full battling the Shi'a in the Iraqi civil war.

Michael Sheuer explained how it wasn't the same AQ last night on Fox and even stratfor agreed with him.

By this exact same line of thinking, Osama himself is “just a local wannabe”.

Not really. It's your confusion. Just because they talked with each other and it went nowhere not only does not mean Iraq was collaboratively involved in 9/11 but also not involved with BL. In fact SH rejected BL as he saw him as a potential enemy eventually that would turn on him.

The same CIA you’re touting as infallibly knowledgeable on the subject says you’re “wrong”. That when OBL was ejected from Sudan, Saddam offered him asylum. OBL only rejected it because he didn’t know how the more stringent Wahabists would react to his cozying up with a more secular Islamist terrorist and settled in Afghanistan instead.

Radar Chief
07-20-2007, 08:06 AM
defending a terrorist that was executed by his own people... the desperation to make the US "wrong" must be excruciatingly painful..or just more watered down boomer mantra.

Saddam was peacefully picking posies until we invaded.
Zarqawi wasn’t an al Qaeda terrorist until we made him that way.
What are you, new?

stevieray
07-20-2007, 08:08 AM
Saddam was peacefully picking posies until we invaded.
Zarqawi wasn’t an al Qaeda terrorist until we made him that way.
What are you, new?

don't forget, we're also responsible for their feelings and actions..

BucEyedPea
07-20-2007, 10:38 AM
You couldn't be more wrong.
No I'm not wrong. You believe the false reports and half-truths placed in the media by neo-con journalists connected to AEI, AIPAC and even Iranian Chalabi who had a vested interest in going into Iraq since 1996 and cherry picked bits and pieces of data to suit their agenda.

noa
07-20-2007, 10:45 AM
I like this little nugget from The Daily Dish's email of the day

So I was watching the morning news in a state of pre-coffee muziness, and the utter absurdity of our position in Iraq suddenly struck me. We are supporting Sunni insurgents who oppose the Iraqi government which we support, which is in turn supported by militias backed by Iran, who we oppose. The administration is calling this the path to victory. Screw the coffee, where did I hide the whiskey?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/email-of-the-da.html

patteeu
07-20-2007, 12:40 PM
No I'm not wrong. You believe the false reports and half-truths placed in the media by neo-con journalists connected to AEI, AIPAC and even Iranian Chalabi who had a vested interest in going into Iraq since 1996 and cherry picked bits and pieces of data to suit their agenda.

I'm a simple guy. I got my info from the 9/11 commission report and an understanding of the English language. In my world, if you are exchanging overtures with someone, you are "involved" with them. My side has been clear to admit that proof of a collaborative relationship has not been established, but you and the rest of the Raimondoans want to muddy the water and give the impression that the two sides had no discussions and had no prospects of coming to terms on collaborative activities. Anyone who believes what the 9/11 commission wrote, cannot at the same time take the position that you take.

BucEyedPea
07-20-2007, 03:33 PM
I'm a simple guy.

That's unfortunate.

patteeu
07-20-2007, 05:49 PM
That's unfortunate.

Ha. :)