Bush links al Qaeda to Iraq militias

[red states rule]

Do you think the Defeatocrats will still push for surrender in Iraq with this information

Sadly, the answer is probably yes



Bush links al Qaeda to Iraq militias
By Joseph Curl
July 25, 2007


In his most direct effort to date to connect al Qaeda to the Iraq war, President Bush yesterday cited declassified intelligence to tie terrorists operating in Iraq with September 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, saying new evidence "clearly establishes this connection."

Taking direct aim at Democrats who charge the president has exaggerated the al Qaeda presence in Iraq, Mr. Bush declared that the highest echelon of bin Laden's terrorist organization has masterminded the foreign insurgency in Iraq, dispatching terrorists to the country to fight U.S. forces there.

"Al Qaeda in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader — Osama bin Laden," the president said in a speech at an Air Force base in Charleston, S.C.

"They know they're al Qaeda. The Iraqi people know they are al Qaeda. People across the Muslim world know they are al Qaeda. And there's a good reason they are called al Qaeda in Iraq. They are al Qaeda. In. Iraq," he said, making dramatic pauses for emphasis.

Just a day after Democrats held a presidential debate in Charleston — and every candidate rejected the Bush administration's justification for remaining in Iraq — Mr. Bush laid out his case that the war is the central front in the global battle against Islamic extremism.

"There's a debate in Washington about Iraq. ... Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September 11, 2001. They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon, that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and that it's not interested in attacking America."

The president said that view would "be news to Osama bin Laden."

"He's proclaimed that the 'third world war is raging in Iraq.' Osama bin Laden says, 'The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.' I say that there will be a big defeat in Iraq and it will be the defeat of al Qaeda," Mr. Bush said to applause.

for the complete article

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070725/NATION/107250073/1001

 

[JeffWartman]

Do you think the Defeatocrats will still push for surrender in Iraq with this information

Sadly, the answer is probably yes



Bush links al Qaeda to Iraq militias
By Joseph Curl
July 25, 2007


In his most direct effort to date to connect al Qaeda to the Iraq war, President Bush yesterday cited declassified intelligence to tie terrorists operating in Iraq with September 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, saying new evidence "clearly establishes this connection."

Taking direct aim at Democrats who charge the president has exaggerated the al Qaeda presence in Iraq, Mr. Bush declared that the highest echelon of bin Laden's terrorist organization has masterminded the foreign insurgency in Iraq, dispatching terrorists to the country to fight U.S. forces there.

"Al Qaeda in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader — Osama bin Laden," the president said in a speech at an Air Force base in Charleston, S.C.

"They know they're al Qaeda. The Iraqi people know they are al Qaeda. People across the Muslim world know they are al Qaeda. And there's a good reason they are called al Qaeda in Iraq. They are al Qaeda. In. Iraq," he said, making dramatic pauses for emphasis.

Just a day after Democrats held a presidential debate in Charleston — and every candidate rejected the Bush administration's justification for remaining in Iraq — Mr. Bush laid out his case that the war is the central front in the global battle against Islamic extremism.

"There's a debate in Washington about Iraq. ... Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September 11, 2001. They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon, that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and that it's not interested in attacking America."

The president said that view would "be news to Osama bin Laden."

"He's proclaimed that the 'third world war is raging in Iraq.' Osama bin Laden says, 'The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.' I say that there will be a big defeat in Iraq and it will be the defeat of al Qaeda," Mr. Bush said to applause.

for the complete article

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070725/NATION/107250073/1001

Yet they weren't in Iraq until we decided to invade.

 

[red states rule]

Yet they weren't in Iraq until we decided to invade.

So why run away from?

 

[Nevadamedic]

Yet they weren't in Iraq until we decided to invade.

Bullshit AQ has had their eyes on Iraq since the 90's

 

[red states rule]

Bullshit AQ has had their eyes on Iraq since the 90's

and terrorists training camps in the North

 

[Nevadamedic]

and terrorists training camps in the North

And Saddam gave them money and weapons. Even though they are enemies the greater enemy was America and both leaders knew that and worked together to combat us.

 

[red states rule]

And Saddam gave them money and weapons. Even though they are enemies the greater enemy was America and both leaders knew that and worked together to combat us.

yet libs say he was not a threat

go figure

 

[maineman]

And Saddam gave them money and weapons. Even though they are enemies the greater enemy was America and both leaders knew that and worked together to combat us.

why would Saddam give money and weapons to an organization pledged to end his very regime and the regimes of every other secular nation-state in the middle east?

Saddam gave money and weapons to arab nationalists.

If you don't know the difference between an islamic extremist and an arab nationalist, you are probably too fucking dumb to be able to make any sort of meaningful contribution to this - or any - discussion.

 

[red states rule]

why would Saddam give money and weapons to an organization pledged to end his very regime and the regimes of every other secular nation-state in the middle east?

Saddam gave money and weapons to arab nationalists.

If you don't know the difference between an islamic extremist and an arab nationalist, you are probably too fucking dumb to be able to make any sort of meaningful contribution to this - or any - discussion.

Still making excuses for Saddam?

 

[maineman]

not at all. Saddam was an asshole.

HOWEVER....He did not crucify Christ. He did not burn 6 million jews. He did not cause cancer. he did not bet on NBA games while officiating. He did NOT provide any assistance to AQ. He did not have anything to do with 9/11.

That is not "making excuses for Saddam" That is telling the truth.

 

[red states rule]

not at all. Saddam was an asshole.

HOWEVER....He did not crucify Christ. He did not burn 6 million jews. He did not cause cancer. he did not bet on NBA games while officiating. He did NOT provide any assistance to AQ. He did not have anything to do with 9/11.

That is not "making excuses for Saddam" That is telling the truth.

But if you had your way, he would still be in power

 

[maineman]

But if you had your way, he would still be in power

That is still not making excuses for him.

If I had MY way we would have done the job at Tora Bora ourselves and Osama bin Laden would have hanged. Iraq took us away from that.

 

[red states rule]

That is still not making excuses for him.

If I had MY way we would have done the job at Tora Bora ourselves and Osama bin Laden would have hanged. Iraq took us away from that.

So Saddma would still be in power and the UN will still be making billions in bribs and taxpayer paid ripoffs

 

[maineman]

So Saddma would still be in power and the UN will still be making billions in bribs and taxpayer paid ripoffs

small price to pay to not waste five years in our real fight to eliminate islamic extremism. The world is a dangerous place. We did a shit poor job of prioritizing our enemies. A trillion dollars, five years and 30K dead and wounded Americans and Al Qaeda is just as strong as it was the day they attacked us.

 

[red states rule]

small price to pay to not waste five years in our real fight to eliminate islamic extremism. The world is a dangerous place. We did a shit poor job of prioritizing our enemies. A trillion dollars, five years and 30K dead and wounded Americans and Al Qaeda is just as strong as it was the day they attacked us.

I am sure the people of Iraq who are not in the mass graves would disagree with you

and I am sure you sleep well knowing Al Qaeda is back to where it was when Clinton left office

 

[maineman]

I am sure the people of Iraq who are not in the mass graves would disagree with you

and I am sure you sleep well knowing Al Qaeda is back to where it was when Clinton left office

you may be "sure" but it is just your opinion. And since when did the safety and security of the Iraqi people become more important to America than the safety and security of American people?

I sleep very poorly knowing that Bush as WASTED a trillion dollars and five years and nearly 30K dead and wounded Americans and we are no safer than the day his administration was asleep at the switch and let us get attacked.

 

[red states rule]

you may be "sure" but it is just your opinion. And since when did the safety and security of the Iraqi people become more important to America than the safety and security of American people?

I sleep very poorly knowing that Bush as WASTED a trillion dollars and five years and nearly 30K dead and wounded Americans and we are no safer than the day his administration was asleep at the switch and let us get attacked.

So thiose people would rather be dead? Oh, the people of Iraq can;t vote for your guys and gals - and they are not black enough to warrent your support for their liberation

 

[maineman]

you and your buddy obviously care very much about the safety and security of Iraqis. You are willing to sacrifice 30K dead and wounded Americans, a TRILLION dollars, and five years to keep THEM safe, but OUR enemy is just as strong as the day they attacked us the last time.

If you love the Iraqis so much and care so little about the safety of Americans, why not move to Baghdad?

 

[red states rule]

you and your buddy obviously care very much about the safety and security of Iraqis. You are willing to sacrifice 30K dead and wounded Americans, a TRILLION dollars, and five years to keep THEM safe, but OUR enemy is just as strong as the day they attacked us the last time.

If you love the Iraqis so much and care so little about the safety of Americans, why not move to Baghdad?

Funny how libs blames the US for the terrorists killing people and not the terrorists

Much like how some on the kook left blamed Amercia for 9-11 and not the terrorists

 

[maineman]

Funny how libs blames the US for the terrorists killing people and not the terrorists

Much like how some on the kook left blamed Amercia for 9-11 and not the terrorists

I certainly blame AQ for the attacks on us. I have wanted America to pursue our enemies relentlessly since the day they did.

unfortunately, guys like you and dubya care more about protecting Iraqis than you do about finding and avenging the attacks on us.