Democrat Defense Policy

[The New Guy]

word is getting around today that der spiegel misinterpreted maliki.

funny thing is that if it weren't for bush/cheney maliki would still be just another subject of saddam hussein.

[saunterelle]

"They were calling for a withdrawal even when al-Qaeda was at the heighth of its power in Iraq, controlling wide swaths of the country and was poised - once we left - to make a bid for carving out an independent duchy that would have given them shelter and protection to mount operations worldwide."



When was it that Al-Qaeda in power in Iraq??

[bolverk]

Jul 21, 2008 13:04:45 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

When was it that Al-Qaeda in power in Iraq??

Paying attention is not one of your strong points.

[bolverk]

Does saunterelle even remember the name Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

[bolverk]

Do you think the family of Shosei Koda believe that Al Qaeda were never in Iraq?

[saunterelle]

Weather or not Zarqawi was an al-Qaeda leader in Iraq is up for debate. In all actuality it seems he was more of a pesky insurgent, using the al-Qaeda name to try and attract more recruits and gain power.


According to terrorism experts, Zarqawi gave al-Qaeda a highly visible presence in Iraq at a time when its original leaders went into hiding or were killed after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. He established al-Qaeda's first military beachhead and training camps outside Afghanistan and by using the al-Qaeda name, bolstered his legitimacy and attracted media attention, as well as money and recruits. In turn, al-Qaeda leaders were able to brand a new franchise in Iraq and claim they were at the forefront of the fight to expel U.S. forces. But this relationship was proven to be fragile as Zarqawi angered al-Qaeda leaders by focusing attackings on Iraqi Shia's more often than U.S. military. In September 2005, U.S. intelligence officials said they had confiscated a long letter that al-Qaeda's deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had written to Zarqawi, bluntly warning that Muslim public opinion was turning against him. According to Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, "A number of al-Qaeda figures were uncomfortable with the tactics he was using in Iraq...It was quite clear with Zarqawi that as far as the al-Qaeda core leadership goes, they couldn't control the way in which their network affiliates operated."

In June 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi "may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. "Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me." Rumsfeld added that, "someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda."

According to the Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence released in September 2006, "in April 2003 the CIA learned from a senior al-Qa'ida detainee that al-Zarqawi had rebuffed several efforts by bin Ladin to recruit him. The detainee claimed that al-Zarqawi had religious differences with bin Ladin and disagreed with bin Ladin's singular focus against the United States. The CIA assessed in April 2003 that al-Zarqawi planned and directed independent terrorist operations without al Qaeda direction, but assessed that he 'most likely contracts out his network's services to al Qaeda in return for material and financial assistance from key al Qaeda facilitators.'"

[bolverk]

You can cut and paste all you like. The simple fact of the matter is, he was in allegiance with Osama Bin Laden. He was Al Qaeda.

[bolverk]

You have been smote for you cut and paste attempt to explain away your position.

[saunterelle]

As I am not an expert on Zarqawi I turn to those who are. Donald Rumsfeld specifically said "someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda." How can you argue with that??

[harpman1]

Easy.

I love Rummy, but even he was not 100% sure what would happen after the Iraqi army was crushed.

It seems you will cherry-pick anyone or anything to prove George Bush really is Hitler.

That makes you vulnerable, as facts are bent to fit your narrative.

It also makes you an easy target.

[jgaffney]

Regardless of Saunterelle's quibbling about how much of an al Qaeda franchise Zarqawi had in Iraq, the points in the letter remain undisputed. The important point is that the Democrats have been against the war ever since they voted for it. As one Senator said, trying to explain her vote in favor of the resolution, "We gave the President the power to go to war, but we didn't really think he'd do it." As soon as the Dems realized that they could gain some traction by opposing the war, backed by the looneys at MoveOn, they started talking as if they were always opposed to action against Saddam.

Once again, the Democrat Party relies on voters barely being able to remember yesterday, let alone 4 years ago. Otherwise, more people would be calling them on the fact that the overwhelming majority of the rhetoric from the Left during the period from 1996 to 2000 was about the threat Saddam posed, about regime-change in Iraq being America's policy, and about the "dire consequences" Saddam would face if he did not comply with the string of UN Security Council resolutions. All that fell by the wayside when MoveOn and Code Pink lit them up.

[jgaffney]

Obama's World Tour has stopped in Israel, where, addressing the Israelis, Obama said:

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday a nuclear Iran would pose a "grave threat" and that the world must stop Tehran from obtaining an atomic weapon.

No Kidding? He just stumbled on that?

Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take "no options off the table" in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed.

Sanctions are not working. If by "no options off the table" Sen. Obama is referring to the use of force, it would put him crosswise with many of his rabid supporters. The press, however, did not follow up on this point.