PDA

View Full Version : Media ABC NEWS: President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan


HonestChieffan
12-02-2009, 03:55 PM
Not one mention last night from his Telepromterness of the word "Taliban"....guess he wants to negotiate with them?

If hes after the Al Qaeda boys, hes gotta go hard into Paki land and they don't seem to keen on that at all.

But then, we saw this once before...Laos and Cambodia were off limits under the Rules set by Johnson. And the Allies we have in Afganistan have their own rules of engagement that prohibit being an offensive force..Italy and GBrit as examples.

18 months huh.


President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan
With New Surge, One Thousand U.S. Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al Qaeda Fighter
By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS
Dec. 2, 2009

As he justified sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's description Tuesday of the al Qaeda "cancer" in that country left out one key fact: U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country.

Obama said sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan is in the "vital national interest" of the United States.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations.

President Obama made only a vague reference to the size of the al Qaeda presence in his speech at West Point, when he said, "al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same number as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border."

A spokesperson at the White House's National Security Council, Chris Hensman, said he could not comment on intelligence matters.

Mr. Flopnuts
12-02-2009, 04:03 PM
LMAO Holy shit. It's amazing to me that war is a partisan issue for some of you.

Direckshun
12-02-2009, 04:21 PM
It's amazing to me that war is a partisan issue for some of you.

It shouldn't be.

For my part, I hope the surge includes a bribe to Pakistan to keep hammering their western border.

If Al Qaeda resurfaces in Afghanistan, that's where they're going to come from.

BucEyedPea
12-02-2009, 04:25 PM
Not one mention last night from his Telepromterness of the word "Taliban"....guess he wants to negotiate with them?
Here's the thing. The Taliban has been trying to negotiate with us. They've even offered concessions. That's the time to negotiate a settlement and get out of Dodge.

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 04:44 PM
SHOCKING!! GAME CHANGER!! Wait we already knew this 6 months ago. Of course hcf could care less about facts and that AQ move back and forth across the border like he moves between fucking his pigs and cows.

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 04:49 PM
hcf you seem to bitch and moan about everything yet never offer up anything different. So if you think McChrystal is a giant dumbass what plan would you do?

HonestChieffan
12-02-2009, 05:29 PM
Dirk, are you on or need to be on meds?

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 05:37 PM
Dirk, are you on or need to be on meds?

Why do you have some?

Anyway you have an answer to my question?

HonestChieffan
12-02-2009, 05:46 PM
No I dont have one. But its a good question. I think McCrystal is darn sharp. I have no recollection of anything I have said negative about him.

No, I dont take meds. But I am always pretty calm, mellow and easy to get along with.

I do offer up some ideas on occasion. You should look back and read a few if you have time or interest. If not thats ok. At least from here forward perhaps you can take note when I do. Or not if thats what you care to do.

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 05:56 PM
No I dont have one. But its a good question. I think McCrystal is darn sharp. I have no recollection of anything I have said negative about him.

No, I dont take meds. But I am always pretty calm, mellow and easy to get along with.

I do offer up some ideas on occasion. You should look back and read a few if you have time or interest. If not thats ok. At least from here forward perhaps you can take note when I do. Or not if thats what you care to do.

Then wtf are you bitching for? This is McChrystal's plan and Obama's war and we have known for a long time that there wasn't many AQ in Afghanistan. That is why Biden opposed sending more troops in. But let's not forget that AQ may not "live" in Afghanistan but they come and go as they please because there is no security on the border.

HonestChieffan
12-02-2009, 06:03 PM
Damn Dirk....whats the heavy angst over?

The OP deals with primarily the issue of ABC News, a huge Pro-Obama news org, coming out hard with this story...thats take away one. I dont think there is a critique of McCrystal in there. Its simply anothe sign of the deteriration of Obama's popularity and a sign that the media who created him may well in fact be distancing themselves...not all, I mean MSNBC never will and NBC is clse behind.

Clearly we can ask the simple question of is the Taliban a target for our troops? If so, is it not reasonable to ask a day later, why did not the president mention them one time in his speech?

If Al Queada is the key, and I think it likely is, then we are on the hook with pakistan and they dont have a lot of use for us and in many cases, the paki government is supportive of AQ.

If after 90 days of thinking, why didnt he think that through and provide some direction?

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 06:14 PM
Damn Dirk....whats the heavy angst over?

The OP deals with primarily the issue of ABC News, a huge Pro-Obama news org, coming out hard with this story...thats take away one. I dont think there is a critique of McCrystal in there. Its simply anothe sign of the deteriration of Obama's popularity and a sign that the media who created him may well in fact be distancing themselves...not all, I mean MSNBC never will and NBC is clse behind.

Clearly we can ask the simple question of is the Taliban a target for our troops? If so, is it not reasonable to ask a day later, why did not the president mention them one time in his speech?

If Al Queada is the key, and I think it likely is, then we are on the hook with pakistan and they dont have a lot of use for us and in many cases, the paki government is supportive of AQ.

If after 90 days of thinking, why didnt he think that through and provide some direction?

I was responding to your quote which said nothing about the media.

Not one mention last night from his Telepromterness of the word "Taliban"....guess he wants to negotiate with them?

If hes after the Al Qaeda boys, hes gotta go hard into Paki land and they don't seem to keen on that at all.

But then, we saw this once before...Laos and Cambodia were off limits under the Rules set by Johnson. And the Allies we have in Afganistan have their own rules of engagement that prohibit being an offensive force..Italy and GBrit as examples.

But you know what hcf you were wrong he said Taliban in his speech multiple times. LMAO

Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war,

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden

The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda,

Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan,

Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban,

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed,

In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban

Need I go on?

HonestChieffan
12-02-2009, 06:26 PM
Well ya got me there, I should have been more clear and as a result you are absolutly correct regarding talibnan references. The fact remains that the media point is valid and I should have been more clear in my focus on the lack of a balanced focus on alqeada and the Taliban.

You caught me speeding. Write me up, i'll pay the fine

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 06:32 PM
Well ya got me there, I should have been more clear and as a result you are absolutly correct regarding talibnan references. The fact remains that the media point is valid and I should have been more clear in my focus on the lack of a balanced focus on alqeada and the Taliban.

You caught me speeding. Write me up, i'll pay the fine

I still don't understand the gripe. Is it because he didn't say there is only 100 or so AQ left in Afghanistan techincally? To me that is a silly gripe knowing full well AQ comes and goes as they please between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And just to be clear he mentioned AQ 22 times in his speech.

T-post Tom
12-03-2009, 12:21 AM
Seems a big portion of the article was left out. Here it is in its entirety:

President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan

By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS
Dec. 2, 2009

As he justified sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's description Tuesday of the al Qaeda "cancer" in that country left out one key fact: U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations.

President Obama made only a vague reference to the size of the al Qaeda presence in his speech at West Point, when he said, "al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same number as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border."

A spokesperson at the White House's National Security Council, Chris Hensman, said he could not comment on intelligence matters.

Obama's National Security Adviser, Gen. James Jones, put the number at "fewer than a hundred" in an October interview with CNN.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., referred to the number at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee in October, saying "intelligence says about a hundred al Qaeda in Afghanistan."

As the President acknowledged, al Qaeda now operates from Pakistan where U.S. troops are prohibited from operating. "We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country," he said.

Intelligence officials estimate there are several hundred al Qaeda fighters just across the border in Pakistan.

An Obama administration official said the additional troops were needed in Afghanistan to "sandwich" al Qaeda between Pakistan and Afghanistan and prevent them from re-establishing a safe haven in Afghanistan.

"Pakistan has been stepping up its efforts," the official said

"So the real question is will Pakistan do enough," said former White House counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

"What if they take all the money we given them but don't really follow through? What the strategy then?" said Clarke.

With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year.

al Qaeda's Ideological Influence
Other counter-terror analysts say the actual number of al Qaeda in Afghanistan is less important than their ability to train others in the Taliban and have ideological influence.

"A hundred 'no foolin' al Qaeda operatives operating in a safe haven can do a hell of a lot of damage," said one former intelligence official with significant past experience in the region.

At a Senate hearing, the former CIA Pakistan station chief, Bob Grenier, testified al Qaeda had already been defeated in Afghanistan.

"So in terms of 'in Afghanistan,'" asked Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "they have been disrupted and dismantled and defeated. They're not in Afghanistan, correct?"

"That's true," replied Grenier.

LINK: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861&page=2

Taco John
12-03-2009, 12:45 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k1tFvvjgMjQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k1tFvvjgMjQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Taco John
12-03-2009, 12:49 AM
We aren't going to win anything in Afghanistan. Why waste the lives of soldiers in a fruitless war?

Hog Farmer
12-03-2009, 03:42 AM
We aren't going to win anything in Afghanistan. Why waste the lives of soldiers in a fruitless war?

Because some of our soldiers actually enjoy getting the opportunity to kill bad guys. And also we are always needing some place to test newly developed weapons on real targets.

wild1
12-03-2009, 08:28 AM
AQ was beaten back there very effectively over the past 7 or 8 years.

The problem will be the Taliban loyalists who will move right back into Kabul once we retreat, and then create a welcoming environment for AQ as it existed in the late 90s.

KCWolfman
12-03-2009, 11:40 AM
So 100 Al Qaeda killed a record number of our soldiers over the last 3 months?

Cannibal
12-03-2009, 10:05 PM
AQ was beaten back there very effectively over the past 7 or 8 years.

The problem will be the Taliban loyalists who will move right back into Kabul once we retreat, and then create a welcoming environment for AQ as it existed in the late 90s.

So we're there forever. Got it.

BucEyedPea
12-03-2009, 10:53 PM
Indeed, as far back as October of 2008 officials were saying the Taliban had severed all ties with al-Qaeda. (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghan.saudi.talks/?iref=mpstoryview)Even putting aside these reports, the claim that the former Afghan government is “taking orders” from the remnants of a small terrorist outfit seems to fly in the face of all evidence on their mutual relationship.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/12/02/o...-with-taliban/

Seems to me "Victory" has been achieved in Afghanistan.
Terror camps broken up √
Taliban has cut ties to AQ √

I think we can give Bush credit for that too.

Now we continue to work with the Pakistani govt for inside their country for the big guys BL AZ....perhaps do something on the border area.

Time to get out of Afghanistan though. But the Asian Development Bank isn't gonna let up on having American bases guarding that natural gas pipeline—the real reason those who really want us there have to have a case for conflict there.

BucEyedPea
12-03-2009, 10:55 PM
AQ was beaten back there very effectively over the past 7 or 8 years.

The problem will be the Taliban loyalists who will move right back into Kabul once we retreat, and then create a welcoming environment for AQ as it existed in the late 90s.

Nope they've severed ties with AQ and have sought negotiations with us to leave. That's the time we engage them and get out of Dodge. Except for Kool-Aid drinkers that is.