It just doesn't register with republicans that 'Iraqi al-Qaeda' wouldn't exist if we hadn't invaded

[bigtree]

and had kept after bin-Laden and his accomplices in Afghanistan instead of diverting to Iraq.

And the most ridiculous thing is their persistence in highlighting the influence the 9-11 suspects have had in Iraq, while arguing that we should stay diverted and distracted from eliminating the source of that influence in Afghanistan/Pakistan. It's as if they are content to have bin-Laden stirring folks up in Iraq and elsewhere and have the violent resistance to our presence serve to justify their military expansionism in the Mideast.

Bush and his republicans don't have any interest at all in supporting intensifying efforts against the original suspects in the September 11th attacks on our nation; the only attacks on our nation. Bush has all but abandoned that effort to find and capture bin-Laden.

Iraq is a prime example of how they would defend America against another attack. The next terrorist perps would presumably be able to count on over five years of freedom after their attack if republicans prevail. Attackers can count on our military assistance in provoking and fostering regional resentment to the United States, and to provoke their countryfolk to resistance and alliance with any and all who would actively oppose us.

Bush and his republicans don't have a clue when it comes to protecting America from another attack, and they have been intent on ignoring the original source of the attacks on our nation for over five years; and instead, are determined to escalate the fight they picked with the Iraqis until those who resist develop into a threat which just didn't exist before Bush made them the targets of his opportunistic campaign of shock and awe.

Bush and his republicans have made America less safe. They have absolutely no credibility in claiming that more of the same would produce a different result than we've been saddled with since the administration allowed the 9-11 suspects to escape and dragged our country into their cynical crusade. And, now they're arguing that they should be allowed to continue . . .


from Raw Story: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_reporter_Bush_AlQaeda_warnings_come_0717.html

CNN's Baghdad reporter: Beware of 'smoke and mirrors from the administration'

Tuesday July 17, 2007

CNN's Wolf Blitzer spoke on Tuesday with Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware, asking him about the newly-released National Intelligence Estimate which "suggested al Qaeda is seeking to leverage al Qaeda in Iraq for attacks against US targets outside of Iraq."

"That statement in the NIE is about three years too late," Ware responded. "Al Qaeda has reorganized itself through the war in Iraq that America handed it on a silver platter in its own backyard. ... The war here ... has energized the jihadi community across the globe." Ware asserted that "Iraq veterans" among foreign terrorists "are creating a whole new momentum back in their homelands," but said that "the true danger of al Qaeda in Iraq is the template or the model it offers" even to those who have never been to Iraq.

Equally quick to insist that the NIE should not be taken too literally, Ware said, "We must be aware of the spin, the smoke and mirrors from the administration, trying to reshape the message on Iraq being specifically about al Qaeda ... trying to evoke some Pavlovian response from the American public to fear them into again supporting the war. That doesn't quite hold water."


WP: Intelligence puts rationale for war on shaky ground.

''We're creating terrorists in Iraq, we are creating terrorists outside of Iraq who are inspired by what's going on in Iraq,' (says Dan Benjamin). 'The longer we stay, the more terrorists we create.''

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071702007_pf.html

[HughBeaumont]

1. I think the answer to ANY question that starts off with "does it register with Republicans" . .

. . . is "no, it doesn't".

Because acting first and not thinking at all is better than being a "weak Defeatocrat" any day!

[bigtree]

2. even worse, there's the prospect that they are thinking

and using the conflicts they stir up to justify and perpetuate their lucrative state of war. War futures, anyone?

[Canuckistanian]

3. They don't realize that Saddam was keeping a lid on Islamic extremists

Any trace of Islamic militant actions were brutally crushed, sometimes even before the planning stage.

He would have LIKED to harness all that anger, but Saddam was too much of a heretic for the hard-liners.

So, in a way, the deposing of Saddam and his Ba'ath organization opened the floodgates and allowed the radicals to organize, get funding and reach out to organizations like Al Qaeda in other countries.

And all this was happening right under the noses of American forces who didn't know the language or culture of the Iraqis. And they never bothered to find out or even try to make friends, so it's no surprise that Americans are hated and get no cooperation from locals.

The failure of this invasion will last for generations.

[bigtree]

4. right. there we were, protecting the likes of Zarkawi with our no-fly zone

and now we have Chalabi, the cretin who sold us the WMD lies for 100 million to his Iraqi National Congress, organizing against the very reconciliation with the Batthists that Bush says he's waiting for.

[VP505]

5. I disagree

I think they are aware, they just don't know how to deal with everything they have screwed up and an electorate waking up to all the lies, bungling, fumbling, incompetence and ideology that is a complete failure.

[bigtree]

7. right. they can't really want to eliminate the fugitives in Afghanistan/Pakistan

They're all Bush has left to threaten Americans with outside of the dwindling band of Saudi combatants in Iraq.

[zanne]

6. Selective amnesia.

Seems to be an epidemic with them.

[texpatriot2004]

8. I heard Condasleeza on NPR yesterday when asked a ? on

this topic respond with "just to be completely accurate..." and she says they were in Iraq because one member of AQ was there before we invaded (she named his name but I was too disgusted by her comment and do not recall what it was).

[bigtree]

10. that would be Zarkawi, the one we killed

the one that Saddam reportedly wanted to kill, but was protected from him up north by our no-fly zone.


from AsiaTimes: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ15Ak02.html

"What had he actually done until 2004? Not much. Unlike bin Laden in 1998, he never issued a declaration of war against Jews and Crusaders. Because Zarqawi may have been in northern Iraq at the time - training Ansar al-Islam fighters - and because he may have traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 to treat his injured, or amputated leg, was evidence enough for Powell to speak of "a sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network". Powell of course never mentioned two crucial facts: even if Zarqawi was really in northern Iraq, he was in a safe heaven for Iraqi Kurds; and Ansar al-Islam was a mortal enemy of Saddam's Ba'athists. Not to mention the fact that the Pentagon always refused to take out Ansar's base: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was not interested in obliterating a perfect pretext for the war. Moreover, Ansar could also be used as an ally against Saddam. "

[texpatriot2004]

11. Yes, that's the one. I found Rice's need to be "completely

accurate" extremely bogus!

[spanone]

9. bu$h*s self fullfilling prophecy....war without end amen